Prayers

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker (Standing Order No. 3).

Simon Fell: I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163).
Question negatived.

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Roger Gale: Before we get on to proceedings, I remind Members of the differences between Report and Third Reading. The scope of debate on Report is limited to the amendments I have selected. The scope of the Third Reading debate that follows will be the whole Bill, as it stands after Report. Members may wish to consider those points and then decide at which stage or stages they want to catch my eye.

New Clause 1 - Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse

‘(1) The Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)) is amended as follows:
(2) In Article 7 (child support maintenance)—
(a) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Where a maintenance calculation has been made in response to an application under this Article, the Department may, if the person with care or the non-resident parent applies to the Department under this paragraph, arrange for the collection of the child support maintenance payable in accordance with the calculation if satisfied on the basis of evidence of a prescribed kind relating to relevant abusive behaviour that it is appropriate for such arrangements to be made.
(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3A), ‘relevant abusive behaviour’ means—
(a) where the application under paragraph (3A) is made by the person with care, behaviour of the non-resident parent that is abusive of the person with care or of any child living in the same household with the person with care;
(b) where the application under paragraph (3A) is made by the non-resident parent, behaviour of the person with care that is abusive of the non-resident parent or of any child living in the same household with the non-resident parent.
(3C) What amounts to abusive behaviour for the purposes of paragraph (3B) is to be construed in the same way as is provided for in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the  Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 (c.2 (N.I.)) (see sections 2, 3(2) and 4 of that Act).”;
(b) in paragraph (4) (purposes for which regulations may require information to be provided)—
(i) omit the “and” after sub-paragraph (b);
(ii) after sub-paragraph (c) insert “; and (d) the making by the Department of a determination for the purposes of paragraph (3A).”
(3) In Article 29(1) (collection of child support maintenance)—
(a) after “7(2A)” (as inserted by Article 127(3) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1))) insert “and (3A)”;
(b) after “7(2)” insert “or (3A)”.
(4) In Article 48(2)(a) (regulations to be laid before Assembly after being made), before “9(1)” insert “7(3A),”.’—(Mims Davies.)
This new clause makes amendments to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 that correspond to those clause 1 of the Bill makes to the Child Support Act 1991 in respect of England and Wales and Scotland.
Brought up and read the First time.

Mims Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 4, page 3, line 15, leave out “and Scotland” and insert “, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 16, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) Section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse) comes into force at the same time as Article 127(2)(b) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1)).”
This amendment provides for NC1 to come into force at the same time as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse).
(6B) The power to make regulations under subsection (6A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I.1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).”
This amendment enables the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision in respect of Northern Ireland corresponding to that which may be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.

Mims Davies: New clause 1 makes amendments to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 that correspond to the amendments this Bill makes to the Child Support Act 1991 in respect of England, Wales and Scotland. The amendments make provision for Northern Ireland to allow victims of domestic abuse who use the Child Maintenance Service, to request the collect and pay service on the grounds of domestic  abuse and where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the requesting parent or children in their household by the other parent.
Child maintenance is devolved in Northern Ireland; however, the Northern Ireland Assembly has typically made legislation that mirrors Great Britain. Due to the current suspension of the Assembly, it is not possible for Northern Ireland to make the necessary mirroring legislation at this time, although we all hope that situation will change as soon as possible.
As hon. Members will know from the Bill’s Second Reading and Committee stage, these proposals did not initially extend to Northern Ireland, as Northern Ireland colleagues were unable to obtain a legislative consent motion, which would be the normal process. However, as described, in the continued absence of a functioning Assembly, officials in the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland have confirmed that they wish Northern Ireland to be included within the scope of the changes proposed in the Bill, and I can confirm to the House that approval in principle has been obtained from the relevant officials of the Department for Communities.
In considering this new clause, I remind hon. Members what the Bill is intended to achieve: better support for victims of domestic abuse. The Bill will amend primary legislation to allow a parent, or a child in Scotland, to request the collect and pay service on the grounds of domestic abuse where there is evidence of abuse against them or children in their household. It is an important measure for domestic abuse victims who use the CMS, as they will be able to decide which service type is best for them and their circumstances.
I turn now to the amendments. Amendments 1 and 2 are consequential amendments. Amendment 3 provides for the new clause to come into force at the same time  as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Amendment 4 will enable the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision corresponding to that which can be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.
This Government take the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously, and the Child Maintenance Service is fully committed to ensuring that all parents get the right support and are safe when using the service. I am delighted that these important measures will be implemented in Northern Ireland. I am sure Members agree that this important protection should be available to people across the United Kingdom, so this amendment and the other consequential amendments will ensure that victims of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland can benefit from the provisions in the Bill.
Members have previously raised the issue of domestic abuse training. I want to reiterate that the CMS has substantially strengthened its procedures and processes through the introduction of mandatory training and new and updated tools for customers who are experiencing domestic abuse. The CMS will rightly be reviewing this training following the independent review. I remind the House that the application fee is waived for those who have suffered domestic abuse. The CMS will act as an intermediary in direct pay cases to facilitate the exchange  of bank details, to ensure that no personal information is shared. The CMS provides information on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which allows survivors of abuse to be safe and not to be traced.
During the passage of the Bill, it has been important for Members to understand how the wider Department for Work and Pensions can help people experiencing domestic abuse. I will take this opportunity to mention Ask for ANI, a code word scheme that allows domestic abuse victims to signal discreetly that they need support. This initiative, which was developed by the Home Office and supported by delivery partner Hestia, has been made available to over 500 pharmacies since January 2021. Anybody who is suffering from or fearful of domestic abuse can use Ask for ANI when they are engaging with the Child Maintenance Service, and they will be guided to a safe space to share their practical concerns and be offered support, perhaps by calling the police or reaching out to specialist domestic abuse services.
The DWP is committed, as part of the Home Office’s tackling domestic abuse plan, to piloting the Ask for ANI initiative in jobcentres, and those pilots are already under way in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I want to reiterate to anybody who is concerned about this matter, no matter where they are in the United Kingdom, that the Child Maintenance Service is there and able to support those who come forward.
The review set out some clear recommendations on how the CMS should respond to domestic abuse, and the Government published their response on 17 January 2023. The review finds that the CMS has worked very hard to develop and improve its domestic abuse practices. As Members will know, people who engage with the CMS often have the most complex cases and needs, so it is right that we have taken the chance to learn lessons and ensure that there are practical steps to help separated parents who are experiencing abuse to set up safe maintenance arrangements. As I said in relation to the amendments, this will be available across the United Kingdom. The Government have accepted eight out of 10 of these recommendations.
I will welcome the opportunity on Third Reading to take various further interventions, but I am conscious that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have made it clear that on Report we should focus on the amendments. I take this opportunity to highlight that we take the issue of domestic abuse extremely seriously. The Child Maintenance Service is fully committed to ensuring that all parents get the right support, no matter where they are in the United Kingdom, and that they feel safe when using this service.
I am absolutely delighted that these important measures can now be implemented in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Members agree that this is an important, boosted protection that will be available to people across the United Kingdom. The new clause and the consequential amendments will fully ensure that victims of domestic abuse, wherever they are, and now including Northern Ireland, can benefit from the provisions of this Bill. I will close to let other Members speak to the amendments.

Sally-Ann Hart: I thank my hon. Friend, the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression for moving these important Government amendments. I was delighted to co-sign them. These new amendments will allow for the provisions in the Bill to include Northern Ireland. That will mean that domestic abuse victims, not just in our English constituencies, but throughout the United Kingdom, will benefit from the measures in this Bill. I am sure that all Members here today can recognise the importance of that.
The Minister has assured me that officials will be working closely with legal colleagues and the other Administrations across the United Kingdom to ensure that the provisions are implemented effectively. I thank all Members for joining me here today and for their support of this Bill.

Paul Howell: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for bringing this Bill before the House to address such an important issue. I expect that problems with the Child Maintenance Service and domestic abuse are some of the most universal and least partisan that my colleagues and I encounter in the course of our work.
As we know, domestic abuse is not limited to any particular group—anyone can be a victim. At the same time, it is helpful to recognise that the economic impact of domestic abuse is particularly severe for single mothers, who make up 90% of single-parent households, and whose opportunities to work may be limited by childcare. A study by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that pre-pandemic, nearly half the children in single-parent households were living in poverty. Single parents are likely therefore to need childcare payments, because of the considerable costs associated with raising children, yet those who experience domestic abuse can find themselves still vulnerable to abusive behaviour through the structure of the CMS. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded in its report on the CMS that the system is not—

Roger Gale: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I did put down the marker at the beginning that Members should be speaking to amendments on Report. He is making a Third Reading speech. He is welcome to retain the Floor, but he must stick to the amendments.

Paul Howell: My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will wait for Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 4 - Extent, commencement and short title

Amendments made: 1, page 3, line 15, leave out “and Scotland” and insert “, Scotland and Northern Ireland”.
This amendment is consequential on NC1.
Amendment 2, page 3, line 16, after “(4)” insert “, (4A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 3.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) Section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse) comes into force at the same time as Article 127(2)(b) of the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/2006 (N.I. 1)).”
This amendment provides for NC1 to come into force at the same time as amendments made by the Welfare Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 2015 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Amendment 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland may by regulations make transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of section (Collection of maintenance in Northern Ireland: cases involving domestic abuse).
(6B) The power to make regulations under subsection (6A) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).” —(Mims Davies.)
This amendment enables the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland to make transitional or saving provision in respect of Northern Ireland corresponding to that which may be made by the Secretary of State in respect of England, Wales and Scotland.
Third Reading

Sally-Ann Hart: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As many hon. Members heard me say on Second Reading, I emphasise that this Bill is an important measure for victims of domestic abuse who use the Child Maintenance Service. I am proud, delighted and grateful that it is being taken forward and has the support of the Government, as confirmed by the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) on Second Reading, and reconfirmed in Committee by the Minister for Social Mobility, Youth and Progression, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). I am pleased that she is here again today on behalf of the Government, and thank her profusely for her support and the support she has shown throughout the progression of the Bill.
Moving on to developments that have occurred  since the Bill was in Committee, I am delighted that  the independent review of the ways in which the  CMS supports victims of domestic abuse has now been published, alongside the Government’s responses to its recommendations. Many of my hon. Friends highlighted that review on Second Reading and in Committee, so I am pleased that it has now been progressed. The Bill will strengthen support for domestic abuse victims by ensuring that victims of domestic abuse, who are overwhelmingly women, are able to avoid entirely any need to engage with the other parent if there is evidence of abuse, helping to make them as safe as possible when using the Child Maintenance Service. These proposals give victims of domestic abuse choice—another avenue to aid their escape and removal from an abusive partner or environment, while ensuring that victims have more protection than was previously the case.

Wendy Chamberlain: I am delighted to be here today, as I was when the Bill was in Committee. As constituency MPs, I think we all know the issues that the CMS presents when domestic abuse is involved. Indeed, I have a constituent whose children are grown up, but who still has moneys outstanding as a result of the coercive control of domestic abuse, and her  ex-partner still utilises that fact. I welcome my hon. Friend’s Bill, and hope very much that its provisions will help prevent those kinds of long-term abusive ongoing relationships.

Sally-Ann Hart: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and completely agree with her. I am absolutely confident that the Bill will help prevent those sorts of long-term coercive and abusive behaviours that many women and children have had to put up with over the years.
I reiterate how pleased I was to see the independent review published during the Bill’s passage, which makes a recommendation to do just what this Bill is advocating. The Bill will amend primary legislation to allow victims of domestic abuse to use the collect and pay service where there is evidence of domestic abuse against the requesting parent by the other party to the case, who could be the paying or the receiving parent, or even against children in their households by the other parent involved in the case. I am pleased that MPs from across the House agree on the importance of this Bill, as it is a key move to help deal with a more masked form of domestic abuse: financial abuse and coercion. The Bill also removes the additional threat of emotional abuse that can occur if direct pay is used.
By way of a reminder, the Child Maintenance Service aids the payment process of child maintenance between separated parents who cannot reach an agreement on their own following a separation—a challenging job done in very difficult circumstances. I am sure we all recognise that for some separated parents, it will be really difficult to co-operate, especially where there might have been a history of abuse. Once parents are in the system, the Child Maintenance Service manages child maintenance cases through one of two service types: direct pay and collect and pay. For direct pay, the CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but payments are arranged privately between the two parents. For collect and pay, the CMS calculates the maintenance payment and then collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent. Current legislation means that the default option is direct pay, unless both parents agree to collect and pay or the paying parent demonstrates an unwillingness to pay their liability. The Bill will extend the option of collect and pay without the other parent’s consent if domestic abuse is evident, regardless of the payment history.
I know that the CMS already has safeguards for victims of domestic abuse. It ensures that there is no unwanted contact between parents, and in order for parents to use direct pay safely, it provides information on how they can set up a bank account with a centralised sort code so that they cannot be traced to a specific location. I reiterate that I am pleased that the provisions in the Bill will now include Northern Ireland, so that domestic abuse victims throughout the United Kingdom will benefit.
Finally, I thank all the women in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom who have emailed me describing the horror of the coercive and controlling behaviour that many of their former partners have shown towards them over the years. They wanted to  pour out what had happened to them. I very much hope—indeed, I am confident—that the Bill will prevent many more women and children from going through the trauma of coercive financial abuse in the coming years. I hope that all hon. Members agree that the Bill is worthy of our support, and I look forward to seeing it progress through the other House.

Roger Gale: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for calling him prematurely.

Paul Howell: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will start again.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for bringing forward a private Member’s Bill to address such an important issue. I expect that problems with the Child Maintenance Service and domestic abuse are some of the most universal, least partisan issues my colleagues and I encounter in the course of our work. Domestic abuse is not limited to any particular group—anyone can be a victim. At the same time, it is helpful to recognise that the economic impact of domestic abuse is particularly severe for single mothers, who make up 90% of single-parent households and whose opportunities to work may be limited by childcare responsibilities.
Like many Members, I have had people come to my surgeries to talk about coercive, hidden abuse that is very difficult to get on the record. That does impact the decisions that are required in this space. A study by the IFS last year found that, pre-pandemic, nearly half of children in single-parent households were living in poverty. Single parents are likely to need child maintenance payments because of the considerable costs associated with raising children, yet those who have experienced domestic abuse can find themselves still vulnerable to abusive behaviour through the structure of the CMS.
Last year, the Public Accounts Committee concluded in its report on the CMS that the system is not designed to protect victims of domestic abuse, even if it may be the “safest and only way” for them to receive child maintenance payments from an ex-partner. The following is not a comprehensive list, but some ways abusers misuse child maintenance payments are: putting abusive messages in the payment reference; making payment dates unpredictable to interfere with benefit payments; and, in some cases, using the location of the bank account to find the area where the resident parent lives.
I understand why direct payments are the preferred method of child support payments for the CMS. In an ideal world, parents would be able to split amicably and divide the financial responsibility for raising their children equitably; unfortunately, that is often not the case. In situations where the relationship is not only difficult but abusive, it is simply unreasonable for the CMS to ask victims to arrange direct payments with abusers or find out their income details and workplaces themselves.
The Domestic Abuse Commissioner recommends that victims and survivors of domestic abuse are automatically offered the collect and pay option without fees. The Bill’s provision for either parent to object to direct pay on the grounds of domestic abuse represents a significant improvement in the law’s protection for survivors of  domestic abuse. However, it fails to address some issues and I hope Ministers will consider introducing future legislation to tackle them.
It is, for instance, too easy for the paying parent to hide earnings by dropping from pay-as-you-earn on to self-employment and making the visibility of the numbers not good. That deprives children of the financial support they need, and from the Treasury’s perspective it contributes to tax avoidance. Once the paying parent is put on collect and pay, the relief for the resident parent may be temporary, however, and it is important that we deliver these proposed changes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for bringing the Bill forward.

Anthony Browne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this incredibly important Bill. Domestic abuse is truly awful. It is insidious behaviour that goes on behind closed doors, making victims feel traumatised in their own homes. The point of the Bill is that domestic abuse does not necessarily stop when couples separate. It is unacceptable that this behaviour can continue through economic abuse after couples separate.
There have been many cases, including in my constituency, where the separated woman—it tends to be a woman—cannot after separation get payments through the Child Maintenance Service, and it is clear that their partner is withholding payments as a way of continuing their control over their victim through economic abuse. In the current system, there is no way the CMS can stop that; it simply does not have the power to do so. The current system allows the continued economic abuse of victims.
It is important to remember that it is not just the parent victim of abuse who is affected: the children are, too, as this money is used for their upkeep. There have been cases in my constituency where single-parent mothers could not get the funding and were clearly completely out of funds, and ultimately it was their children who suffered. That is utterly unacceptable.
It is therefore important to make a change so the CMS can, when there is abuse, put people on collect and pay services to break the link between abuser and abused. It is important that one parent cannot simply object to that; they must not continue to have a veto. I welcome the earlier amendment to make the Bill cover Northern Ireland. It is unconscionable that it does not cover the entire UK, but this is a devolved issue; however, we do not have a Northern Ireland Government at present.
I totally support the measures in the Bill, although there needs to be further thought on the charging structure: the maintenance liability of 20% for the paying parent seems fair, but the 4% charge on the receiving parent should be reconsidered. I wholeheartedly support the Bill and am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for introducing it.

Vicky Foxcroft: It is a genuine pleasure to respond to this debate from the Opposition Front Bench. I thank and congratulate the  hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing this important Bill to the House and on all her hard work in this area. We fully support the Bill and see it as a welcome step in the right direction. Like colleagues before me, I pay tribute to the many organisations who work tirelessly to support victims of domestic abuse and who have campaigned on this issue, particularly Refuge, Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse.
As we have heard, the Bill—which I know is fully supported by the Government—will make important changes to legislation to allow the Child Maintenance Service to collect and make payments on behalf of victims of domestic abuse without the consent of the ex-partner. This will, I am absolutely sure, come as a huge relief to many.
However, the Opposition remain concerned that there is still outstanding work to be done. On Second Reading and in Committee, Opposition colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) pressed the Department on the 4% charge payable by the receiving parent where collect and pay is used, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has also raised that issue. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that the Government are
“willing to consider…where exemptions may be appropriate”.––[Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c. 9.]
That is encouraging, but I again stress our view that victims of domestic abuse should be exempt from paying the 4% fee. I am aware that they are exempt from paying the £20 application fee, which is absolutely right, but they are then effectively penalised every month simply for using a service that stops them having to have contact with their abusive ex-partner. I hope we can all agree that that is grossly unfair.
Colleagues have mentioned the evidence requirements, which will be set out in secondary legislation. In Committee, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye stated:
“The aim is to produce evidence requirements that are sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse victims and that have been carefully evaluated and tested.”
She went on to state that she had received assurances that the Department will work with colleagues in the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and others
“to ensure that the definition of domestic abuse is consistent…across Government.”––[Official Report, Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Public Bill Committee, 14 December 2022; c. 4.]
I take this opportunity to stress, as we have at all stages of the Bill, that it is vital for Ministers to get the evidence requirement right, as the effectiveness of the Bill hinges on it.
More widely, I call on the Government to ensure that victims of domestic abuse feel as safe as possible when using the CMS. Organisations such as Gingerbread and Surviving Economic Abuse have called for statutory guidance to set out the training CMS staff receive on domestic abuse, and in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley pushed the training point. The Minister responded with robust promises that CMS processes and procedures have been strengthened substantially and that caseworkers are equipped with a toolkit to support customers experiencing abuse. I am sure we have all dealt with domestic abuse cases in the course of our constituency casework and seen at first hand how difficult it can be for victims to leave. The  Government must do all they can to equip them with the tools they need to move forward with their lives, including on the vital issue of financial stability.
I will finish on a quick point about enforcement. Currently, very little appears to be done in cases where the paying parent does not meet their obligations. In cases of domestic abuse, that may leave already vulnerable victims and their families destitute. Although that falls slightly outside the direct scope of the Bill, I would be grateful for reassurances from the Minister in this area.
Despite those continuing concerns, I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye wholeheartedly on getting it through to this stage. I hope the Government will continue to build on this legislation and, more widely, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to deliver a strong, co-ordinated cross-Government approach to domestic abuse.

Simon Fell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on bringing forward this important Bill and getting it to Third Reading. This is a really important issue. I think we have all had cases in our constituency surgeries—we have heard it from Members already—where people have brought the most horrific issues to us. It ranks as one of the top issues. The stories we hear about coercive control and the impact it has on people’s mental health and their ability to look after their children are profound. The steps in the Bill will go a long way to making the world a little bit better for people who are in some of the most difficult circumstances we see as constituency MPs.
Coercive control and financial abuse are just terrible; they are draining. They have impacts far beyond simple pounds and pence. We have all seen that impact, mainly on women and children, when abusers have made it difficult for their former partners by using money as a means of control. Of course, the majority of separated parents do the right thing—they pay their bills and support their children financially—but we see time and again that it is the few bad apples who really make life difficult. They are a reason to look again at the system and at reform.
It is fair to say that, until reasonably recently, financial abuse had been under-recognised as a form of domestic abuse. We need to recognise that predominantly female victims are cut off from sources of money by their partners as a form of control. Some 2.4 million people in England and Wales are estimated to have suffered some form of domestic abuse. In the UK, some reports estimate that one in eight adults—5.9 million people—have experienced economic abuse of some kind in their lifetime from a partner or family member. The majority of those—4.2 million—are women. It leaves them with no money for basic essentials such as food and clothing, and has a massive impact on children, who are the real victims but often overlooked. Having spoken to Citizens Advice in Barrow and in Ulverston, and the fantastic Women’s Community Matters in Barrow, I know just how much this matters and how much time it takes third-sector organisations to help to pick up the pieces and to support people who genuinely do not know where to turn, which is often why they end up with us.
The CMS already has safeguards in place for victims of domestic abuse. For instance, it ensures that there is no unwanted contact between parents, and provides information on how parents can set up a bank account with centralised sort codes so that they cannot be traced. We all acknowledge that any situation where former partners have to co-operate is going to be difficult, particularly when there has been domestic abuse. That is why the proposals in the Bill matter so much. They give victims of domestic abuse the choice to use collect and pay so that they can decide what is best for their personal circumstances. It gives them the freedom to avoid having to transact with the other parent where that is difficult and may lead to bad results. Hopefully, it will make them feel as safe as possible while using the Child Maintenance Service, particularly if the relationship with their former partner was abusive, and will protect them from ongoing coercion and abuse in financial arrangements.
Dozens of constituents have spoken to me during constituency surgeries about their issues and the abuse that they have been through. They have told me about the challenges not just for them but for their children, which affect their mental health, and the fragile relationships that they are trying to rebuild after separation and divorce. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye is an important step to helping them. I am sure that they will recognise that. This hidden abuse is hurtful and hateful. I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill forward, and I am glad to lend it my full support.

Lia Nici: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for introducing this Bill. She is an absolute champion for her community, and I am sure her that constituents are very proud to have such a hard-working and committed Member of Parliament working for them.
Sadly, we all see stories of domestic abuse in our mailbags and in our constituency work. I am afraid that we see this kind of financial coercion and abuse all too often. Sadly, domestic abusers use it as a way to keep power and control over their partners and their children. I welcome the Bill because it means that women in particular can feel safer knowing that their abusive partners will not be able to find them or stop payments electronically.
Recently, constituents have started to come to me about the use of applications on telephones. Their partners have put applications on their phones to control the heating in the house and, unbeknown to my constituents, they are switching off the central heating and making life very unpleasant for them. Anything we can do to stop and cut off the abuse is very welcome. I welcome other Members’ comments about ensuring that the recipients of the payment are not subject to costly surcharges. I come from a single-parent family myself, and we know that single-parent families often struggle to afford everything, especially when an ex-partner is causing as many problems as they can, including by stopping income, causing problems with direct debit payments or interfering with benefit payments. I wholeheartedly support this important Bill and thank my hon. Friend for promoting it.

Mims Davies: There is so much to say and so much to respond to. I join hon. Members across the House in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on navigating this important Bill to its Third Reading. I thank her for promoting the Bill and for her excellent contributions throughout its stages. Promoting a Bill is not easy. I absolutely commend her for her commitment and delivery.
I thank all hon. Members who have highlighted the importance of the Bill in better supporting those who have suffered domestic abuse. I also thank the Opposition for their support. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) rightly raised the point that people avoid payment as a way of continuing to exert control, which is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) spoke about people continuing to using finances to control their former partners, which is completely unacceptable and shows why the Bill is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), who understands single-parentdom as I do, spoke about the importance of tackling abuse and about systems and procedures can continue to facilitate abuse. That has to be stopped, which is what the Bill will do.

Nickie Aiken: I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Does the Minister agree that the Bill builds on what the Government did in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, on the Bill Committee of which I was very proud to serve? This Bill sends a very clear message to survivors of domestic abuse that we will protect them all the way through, even after abuse has stopped, and that child maintenance support will not be used as another tool in the box by perpetrators of domestic abuse.

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, particularly as we approach International Women’s Day. My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby spoke about the same issue. The Domestic Abuse Act brings children into scope, which is incredibly important. We know that abuse affects not just partners but whole families. I spent a very brief time as Minister responsible for safeguarding, but I would like to use this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that this is about criminality in the home. It is not acceptable, and it is not the way people should be behaving. We will make sure that these processes work for all types of families, who are very often in the most complex scenarios. Ultimately, using finance or any other form of weaponisation is absolutely wrong and abhorrent. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) for making that important point.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) mentioned the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), whom I have met and engaged with strongly. I have taken on board all her points about control and about training, and I will cover some of them in my remarks, if I may.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and join him in paying tribute to the third sector organisations that do so much in this space: they advise us on policy and   insight and have been extremely helpful with the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work for his excellent contribution on Second Reading. I also thank my noble Friend Viscount Younger of Leckie, who has recently taken over day-to-day ministerial responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service. I work extremely strongly with him, and I know that he is fully committed to supporting the Bill’s important measures in the other place. I am grateful to all hon. Members who spoke in Committee and have helped to shape the Bill. I very much appreciate their important insights.

Jonathan Gullis: I want to put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) on the incredible work she has done to get this important piece of legislation to this stage.
I join the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) in speaking about the third sector. There is a fantastic Stoke-on-Trent North resident called Laura Carter, who runs what was originally Mums of Stoke and is now Women of Stoke. She does incredible work helping women who are fleeing domestic violence to set up new homes and gathering donations of basic things, such as food, as well as beds, furniture and uniforms for children. I was formerly a teacher for eight and a half years and worked on safeguarding as a head of year. Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely disgusting that children are used as a weapon or tool to coercively control women, which is totally unfair and unnecessary, and that, as well as people who do that having to pay their fair share, we should use the legislation we have passed in the House to throw the rulebook at them and, where necessary, put them in jail?

Mims Davies: My hon. Friend characteristically highlights what is at the heart of what we see in many of our constituency meetings. As the daughter of a women from Stoke-on-Trent, I absolutely agree and thank him for giving a voice to his constituents and our communities, which is incredibly important.
I reiterate that the Government take domestic abuse extremely seriously. We have acted on this issue in a way that no Government have before. The CMS is fully committed to providing the right support and ensuring that it is safe for people to use the service. It seeks to tackle any stigma of what the Child Maintenance Service is about and how it can support people. I take this opportunity to remind people that domestic abuse can take many forms. Whether it is physical, emotional or financial abuse, violent or threatening behaviour or coercive control, the CMS has the procedures in place to ensure that cases are handled appropriately, whatever the circumstances. I hope the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will understand that, and I will outline how we have moved some of those processes on.
For customers using the direct pay service, the CMS can act as an intermediary to facilitate the exchange of bank details to ensure that there is no unwanted contact between parents and that no personal information is shared, which is important. CMS caseworkers also provide information on how to set up bank accounts with a centralised sort code, which reduces the risk of a parent’s location being traced. I am aware that, in complex  scenarios, people will be worried about sharing information. We need them to feel safe, so that children can be supported by their parents. The application fee is waived for survivors of domestic abuse, and CMS caseworkers will signpost people where necessary to suitable domestic abuse support organisations, which we have heard about today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye said, throughout this Bill’s passage hon. Members have been keen to see the publication of the independent review of the ways in which the CMS supports victims of domestic abuse. I am pleased that it was published alongside the Government’s response and recommendations on 17 January. I was involved in those responses and the engagement with the third sector and stakeholders. Dr Samantha Callan has done a remarkably positive job in sharing the review’s recommendations as part of that publication.
As hon. Members will have seen, the independent review found that the CMS has worked hard to develop and improve its domestic abuse practices. Since that review was undertaken by Dr Callan, the CMS has implemented new domestic abuse training measures, including mandatory training for CMS staff on how to respond to domestic abuse cases, ensuring that its caseworkers are well equipped to support parents in those vulnerable situations. The training enables caseworkers to understand how domestic abuse can take various forms—physical, financial, emotional and psychological —so that the CMS can signpost customers to appropriate support such as domestic abuse advocacy groups and, if necessary, advise on contacting the police. Where parents do not feel able to do this, caseworkers will ask whether they are content for them to call the police on their behalf.
The CMS has also implemented a new call script that directly asks about abuse and signposts customers to very specific advice and, importantly, expertise. CMS caseworkers also have a complex needs toolkit, which includes clear steps to follow in order to support customers who are experiencing abuse. This toolkit is regularly reviewed and strengthened using customer insight. Again, the Minister in the other place and I are taking a clear interest in how the toolkit works.
However, as the review points out, there are further steps that the CMS can take. The Government have rightly accepted eight of the review’s 10 recommendations, and we are strongly committed to taking them forward and reviewing the training to ensure that it remains up to date and, most importantly, aligned with best practice.
I spoke earlier about the Ask for ANI pilot roll-out and extension, alongside our J9 interventions through Jobcentre Plus. I reiterate that, in the light of today’s amendments, the Department of Health in Northern Ireland has made pharmacies aware of the Ask for ANI scheme, too. Four jobs and benefits offices in the Department for Communities are also offering Ask for ANI support. Wherever people need help, there is a way for them to get support, which is important.
Dr Callan’s report also includes recommendations to enable cases to be moved to collect and pay where there is evidence of domestic abuse, which is precisely what this Bill aims to do. The Bill also amends primary legislation to allow for a parent or child in Scotland to   request collect and pay on the grounds of domestic abuse where there is evidence of abuse against them or, indeed, against children in the household.
To get these proposals right, to target the right parents appropriately and to make sure we have the right evidence of domestic abuse, we will table secondary legislation.

Bob Blackman: Like my hon. Friend the Member for the two Cities, if I might put it that way—the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken)—I was heavily involved with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Does the Minister think it would be a good idea for children’s social workers, in particular, to wear body cameras to record what happens when they go into a home, to spot the signs of domestic abuse, rather than relying on hearsay evidence reported to their seniors when making key decisions about what happens to the child and, indeed, the abusive parent?

Mims Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarkably insightful idea. Children’s social work is an incredibly brave and diverse job, as we are asking people to go into homes and make judgments. Of course, the police are now wearing body cameras, and Ministers should take note of his view. It is very difficult to look at both sides of the coin, and photographic evidence could be extremely helpful. I am sure that putting it on the record has strengthened his resolve, for which I thank him.
We will engage stakeholder groups including, my hon. Friend will note, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the devolved Administrations, where appropriate, on secondary legislation to ensure that parents are fully supported. The secondary legislation will follow the affirmative procedure, so hon. Members will be able to vote on the proposals. We aim to produce robust evidence requirements that are fully sensitive to the needs of domestic abuse survivors, and we will ensure that all relevant data and insights are thoroughly considered.
I will make some progress, because there are other important Bills to debate this morning. I turn to the collection charges for the use of the collect and pay service, including the 20% on top of the maintenance liability for the paying parent and the 4% of the maintenance received by the receiving parent. Some hon. Members have expressed strong views on the issue. I understand their concerns, but they should note that the charges were introduced with the 2012 child maintenance scheme, which included charging, and has led to an increase in family-based arrangements that are, on the whole, much better for children—indeed, too few people have family arrangements.
We recognise, however, that many of the parents who need the support in the Bill are some of the most vulnerable. Given the circumstances, therefore, alongside the development of secondary legislation, we will look at the charging structure for the use of the collect and pay service, and how that will interact with the proposed changes for victims of domestic abuse in such cases. The secondary legislation will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows. I hope that provides some reassurance to hon. Members on both sides of  the House.

Vicky Foxcroft: I thank the Minister for her commitment to look into the issue and that it will be done in future. Can I press her further to give us some idea of when that might be?

Mims Davies: The hon. Lady should expect it to be early 2024, but I am keen to get on with it. I hope that is a timetable that we can stick to, but we will do our best to bring it about sooner.
On the Northern Ireland amendments, I reiterate that it is important for the measure to cover the whole United Kingdom. I thank all hon. Members and assure them that the Child Maintenance Service is fit for purpose and fully committed to supporting all parents to ensure that they have safe and agreeable arrangements that work for them. I pay huge credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye for bringing the Bill forward and navigating its safe passage. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill. We will continue to support and guide it as it moves through Parliament.

Sally-Ann Hart: With the leave of the House, I will take this opportunity to praise and thank the Minister and hon. Members on both sides of the House for their work and support throughout the process. I extend my appreciation and huge thanks to the Public Bill Office and the officials from the Department for Work and Pensions for their guidance and support, for which I am truly grateful. The support on both sides of the House further proves the overwhelming necessity for the Bill. The need to continue the Government’s essential work to protect women and children, predominantly, from falling victim to domestic abuse is vital. Through the Bill, more protection will be given to some of the most vulnerable in our society.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) for his moving contribution, including on the need for the CMS to keep a forensic eye on the paying parent’s earnings to stop them wriggling out of paying. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who highlighted his concerns.
I thank the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) for her kind words in support of the Bill. I agree that the 4% fee should be waived for victims, but I stress how important it is to get the Bill through Parliament unhindered as soon as possible. I am confident that that matter and the others that she raised are being considered by the relevant Departments and I welcome the Minister’s assurances on that. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who stressed the importance of parents looking after their children financially, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) for her contribution.
Getting children and families right—strengthening families—is vital for our communities, for my beautiful constituency of Hastings and Rye, and for our wider society. The Bill will strengthen the support that domestic abuse victims are offered when using the CMS by allowing them to decide what service type is best for their child maintenance case and their circumstances. I wish it success as it moves to the other House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Consideration of Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 4 - Licensing Regulations

Felicity Buchan: I beg to move amendment 1, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
“(4A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (4)(c) includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England.”
This amendment confirms that licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) may provide for the Secretary of State to designate the district of every local housing authority in England for the purposes of the regulations.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 2, in clause 5, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.
Government amendment 3, in clause 6, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).

Felicity Buchan: We have already heard earlier in the Bill’s passage that there is a real risk of rogue providers changing location in order to avoid regulation. I am determined to put a stop to the exploitation of vulnerable people through the provision of poor-quality supported housing. For the rogues this is a lucrative activity, which is incentive enough for them to move location in order to avoid impending regulation.
The Bill currently provides that licensing regulations may include provision under which the Secretary of State may designate the district of “a” local housing authority as subject to licensing. The amendment clarifies that such provision includes provision for the Secretary of State to designate every district in England as subject to licensing, which means that the Secretary of State could introduce universal local licensing by exercising a power to be conferred by the licensing regulations of clause 4 to designate every local housing authority district in England. It is important that this is set out clearly as an option. The licensing regulations must still make provision for a local housing authority to self-designate, and may require a local housing authority to do so if conditions are met.
I tabled amendment 1 because the Government need to be able to reset the system. We must be able to put a stop to providers simply moving to areas without a licensing scheme and setting up there. With universal local licensing, we could prevent a landlord who had failed a “fit and proper person” test in an area with a licensing scheme from simply relocating to an area without licensing, and thus potentially protect vulnerable residents. If universal local licensing is pursued—and I consider it to be an option—that will mean that all residents of supported housing, wherever they are in England, can take comfort from the fact that the national supported housings standards will be enforced, and action will be taken should a provider not meet them. That option must be available to the Secretary of State.
I want to reassure Members that the Government will consult on the detail of the licensing regime, as is required in the Bill. That, of course, includes consulting on the duty set out in clause 6 relating to the method of enforcing the national supported housing standards, and the effectiveness of the licensing regime. We remain determined that the regime should be light-touch in order to avoid overburdening good providers and local authorities, but also robust enough to force out those running supported housing for the wrong reasons. We will keep the licensing scheme under review to ensure that it is working as was intended. I hope that Members will agree to our making this change.
Let me now deal with Government amendment 2. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) cannot be present today because of future commitments, and he sent me his apologies. I am grateful to him for tabling a similar amendment in Committee, and I am pleased to be able to bring it back to the House today. In Committee he spoke of his concerns about how residents could access supported housing, and expressed particular concern about the problems experienced by residents who were mixed together inappropriately, as well as the increased advertising of supported housing provision on websites such as Gumtree and Zoopla. On the latter point, I can offer some reassurance. I recently met representatives of Gumtree, at their request, to discuss the practice by some supported housing providers of placing advertisements on its website. Gumtree, I am glad to say, has already started to crack down on these inappropriate advertisements and has expressed its willingness to continue to work with the Government on this matter. Members will know that Gumtree is not the only service that can enable rogue landlords to advertise poor-quality supported housing. The Government will work with these services to find solutions, and my amendment will also help.
In the report on exempt accommodation, the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee also raised the issue of access routes into supported housing. I am well aware that residents are finding their way into supported housing through a variety of routes, including websites, as I mentioned earlier, where landlords purport to be providing supported housing but are, in fact, perpetuating the abuse that we are here to tackle. At best, placing someone in supported housing without testing its suitability will mean that the right outcomes will not be achieved and the person will not be able to move on into independent living, if that is appropriate.  At worst, failing to assess the residents’ needs is a clear indicator that genuine support is simply not being delivered at all, and that is not acceptable.
The hon. Member for Sheffield South East and I are in agreement that it is vital that the resident’s support needs are assessed, so that they can be given the right support in the right accommodation. Once these arrangements are in place, we would expect assessments to be carried out in advance of a resident moving into the accommodation, but, in some circumstances, we recognise that that may not be possible. None the less, all supported housing residents must have the confidence that they are living in the right place with the support that they need. Amendment 2 proposed by the Government delivers on that by adding to the list of conditions that may be attached to a supported housing licence at clause 5(3) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents, or potential residents, including in relation to the conduct of those needs assessments. The fine details will, of course, be subject to consultation, but this amendment demonstrates the importance that the House places on proper support being given to supported housing residents, tailored to their individual need. I hope Members agree with me on that.
Amendment 3 is more of a technical amendment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for proposing this amendment in Committee and I am pleased to be able to return with it today. The amendment seeks to amend clause 6, following a request from the Local Government Association to be removed as a statutory consultee. The Bill includes a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult on a number of issues related to the measures in the Bill. As I have said in earlier debates, it is very important to me that we carefully test these measures for unintended consequences before implementation. As determined as I am to drive out poor provision and drive up standards in supported housing, I am equally determined to ensure that good providers can continue to support the vulnerable people who need these vital services.
The Local Government Association asked to be replaced as a statutory consultee by local authorities. Local authorities—or to use the language of the Bill, local housing authorities and social service authorities—will deliver many of the measures in the Bill. It is right that we seek their views before making regulations. In line with that request, the amendment removes the Local Government Association from the list of statutory consultees in clause 6 and replaces them with local housing authorities and social services authorities in England. The effect of the amendment is that the Secretary of State will have an obligation to consult local housing authorities and social service authorities on the design of the licensing regime before making regulations. I hope that hon. Members will agree with this amendment also.

Bob Blackman: At this stage, I will confine my remarks to the three amendments tabled; I will have more to say on Third Reading. The amendments stem from the very healthy cross-party debate we had in Committee on four amendments that were tabled at that stage.
The first amendment, as the Minister has outlined, relates to clarification in the Bill, and it has my full support. The clear point is that it allows the Secretary of State
“to designate the district of every local housing authority in England”
for the purposes of the regulations. That confirms that licensing regulations may be provided by every local authority in England, as opposed to only a few; while possibly only a few will require such measures now, this is a rapidly growing market and we must ensure that the legislation is future-proofed and that rogue landlords are held to account throughout the country rather than, as the Minister rightly says, moving from one area to another.
I ask the Minister, when we look at the regulations that will underpin this legislation, to look at grouping local authorities together to form a licensing regime, rather than relying on relatively small district housing authorities, which may only have one or two units within their area and will therefore find it overbearing to have that regulation and a whole bureaucratic structure just within that area.

Nickie Aiken: I welcome this Bill and, having served on the Bill Committee, I am aware of its importance. I welcome my hon. Friend’s point about grouping councils together and I highly recommend the Minister looking at that. I was responsible for bringing children’s services together with Hammersmith and Fulham and Kensington and Chelsea when I was children’s services lead at Westminster Council, so I know how important it is that we ensure that local authorities, where possible, can work together, not only to be more cost-effective, but to provide a better service.

Bob Blackman: There are also several advantages beyond those my hon. Friend mentions. Providers that provide across more than one district housing authority will then have one set of regulations to abide by rather than, potentially, a number of different ones. That was the original intent of the Bill: to ensure that we deal with the rogue landlords and encourage the good providers to carry on with the excellent work they do. We also need to ensure that no one can slip through the net as a rogue provider, so I am glad the Minister has put forward that proposal.
As my hon. Friend the Minister has said, various different providers are exploiting the system via internet and other social media activities. I recommend her taking a look at a new set-up called RoomMatch, which I believe is just about to be released, and which enables users to look at what providers are providing—both the quality of accommodation and the support provided—to assist those placing vulnerable people in those types of accommodation. At the same time, the people going into that type of accommodation can view it virtually before they get anywhere near it.
The amendment will prevent unlawful providers that have had regulations imposed as a result of the Bill by the local authority in which they operate from simply upping sticks and moving to a nearby authority that does not have regulations, and then continuing to exploit vulnerable tenants for vast quantities of money while still providing a shamefully inadequate level of care.  That is the big challenge. Unfortunately, I have had experience of seeing some of that; it is truly dreadful what we put certain vulnerable people through. Allowing providers to set up somewhere else and continue to exploit people would leave the purpose of the Bill unachieved. I am delighted that the amendment has been tabled; I think it will prevent the worst-case scenario.
It may seem unlikely to some people that the aforementioned case could take place, but I have visited numerous examples of such supported housing. The set-up is extremely quick, and there are low start-up costs, so rogues can set up very quickly and far too easily. They do not need to obtain planning permission, because of the permitted development rights they acquire when providing supported accommodation. Consequently, they can immediately start up and falsely advertise the property on social media networks as good quality with a high level of care. Residents promptly apply, particularly because there is currently a limited amount of affordable housing in the private market.
Almost immediately, tenants are found, and the high rent payments start coming in. To be clear, this is an industry that, when abused, pulls in huge profit margins, so it is completely within the rogue landlord’s interest to set up in another district, even if it is only for a year, before the housing authority introduces regulations. I welcome this amendment, which will send the strongest possible signal to those who wish to abuse vulnerable tenants.
Amendment 2 will enable the licensing regulations under clause 4 to include in the list of conditions attached to  a licence requirements related to the needs assessment  of those looking to enter exempt accommodation and supported housing accommodation, and it has my complete support. I commend the excellent report that the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee did on this. Its Chairman, the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), tabled the amendment in Committee, and I am glad that the Minister agreed to look at it further and refine it to make sure it was fit for purpose. I am glad that she has agreed to adopt the amendment, and I thank her and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East for their contributions and advice relating to it.
I emphasise that good providers have nothing to fear. I have been to many supported housing units where the first thing they do is conduct a needs assessment of the individuals. If a provider is possibly taking someone for two years, they need to assess their needs, so that they can provide the right level of support. It is a scandal that many rogue providers provide no support whatsoever. This amendment is extremely welcome. It has support from Members on both sides of the House and has been broadly welcomed and accepted by local authorities, housing providers and charitable bodies across the sector, which is incredibly reassuring.
At present, the Bill stipulates that the conditions that may be attached to a licence include conditions relating to the standard of accommodation; conditions relating to the use of accommodation; conditions relating to the provision of care, support or supervision; and conditions requiring compliance with national supported housing standards, when we eventually publish them. Amendment 2 will add to that:
“conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents… and relating to the conduct of such assessments”.
Fundamentally, this means that residents of supported accommodation must have an initial assessment of the level of their needs, to ensure that they have access to the correct amount of care and appropriate care relating to their specific complex needs. As we are all aware, every case is unique, and no two individuals will have exactly the same requirements. I am confident that this amendment will help residents to receive the best care—helping them eventually to stand on their own two feet, rebuild their lives and probably enter the private housing market in future. Local authorities can be held responsible for initiating these assessments and ensuring enforcement by all supported housing providers in their districts. The amendment will ensure that every local authority carries that forward and achieves the best outcome for residents.
Amendment 3 stems from discussions with the Local Government Association; I declare an interest, as a vice-president of the LGA. The LGA is the body that was previously named, which meant that it was consulted on all aspects of licensing regulations. However, as a localist, I believe it is right that local housing authorities and social services authorities are the ones consulted, so that each authority can have its views taken into account by Ministers when decisions are made. Stipulating the LGA as a consultee risked local authorities, as delivery partners, not having the primary opportunity to consult on elements that they will consequently be responsible for enforcing, so amending the Bill in this way is clearly the right way forward. I am pleased that the Local Government Association is highly supportive of the amendment. It has assured me and other local authorities that it will continue to work with colleagues and officials across central Government, other local authorities and accommodation providers to support the future consultation on the Bill. As this will be the case, it has been explicitly named, as per the amendment. The amendment is extremely welcome; it clarifies a point, and I endorse it completely.
I am thankful to the Minister for honouring her pledges in Committee by tabling the amendments, which I wholeheartedly support.
Amendment 1 agreed to.

Clause 5 - Further provision about licensing regulations

Amendment made: 2, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) conditions requiring the carrying out of assessments of the needs of residents (or potential residents) and relating to the conduct of such assessments;”.—(Felicity Buchan.)
This amendment enables licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3) to provide that conditions attached to a licence may include conditions relating to needs assessments.

Clause 6 - Consultation

Amendment made: 3, page 7, line 4, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) each local housing authority in England,
(aa) each social services authority in England,”.—(Felicity Buchan.)
This amendment substitutes local housing authorities in England and social services authorities in England for the Local Government Association in the list of persons the Secretary of State must consult before making licensing regulations under clause 4(1) or (3).
Third Reading

Bob Blackman: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
When we are considering opportunities for private Members’ Bills and when we are drawn in the lottery for them, it is important that we consider what we are going to take forward. I am very conscious that I have met many Members who have been in this House for more than 20 years and have never been drawn in the ballot, and this is my second opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill. [Interruption.] Members have to enter the ballot if they want to succeed.
My experience in 2016 with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was a key pointer, because Members have the choice of taking a Bill that the Government would like them to take, developing a Bill that the Government completely oppose and going down in flames, or developing their own. In both cases when I have been drawn, I have chosen the latter. That is not the easy route by any means, but when I had the opportunity to propose a private Member’s Bill, I wanted to make sure that I helped vulnerable people who cannot speak for themselves. That is why the Homelessness Reduction Act, the single biggest reform in housing for more than 40 years, came about.
This new Bill, the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill, deals with the vulnerable people who should be assisted as a result of the Homelessness Reduction Act. Both that Act and this Bill stem from reports published by Select Committees on which I have had the honour of serving: we have provided the evidence base and have almost carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on the Bills before we propose them.
I am pleased to speak to this Bill once more as it reaches Third Reading, and I am encouraged by the journey thus far. We have engaged in meaningful and constructive debate, leading to the fine-tuned edits that we have just made on Report. The main message of the Bill, however, remains the same: we want to prevent vulnerable tenants from being exploited by rogue landlords. My central message to the good providers out there—there are some brilliant organisations that help vulnerable people—is that they have nothing to fear from the new legislation. It is the rogues we are after—those who exploit vulnerable people.
As the cost of living crisis continues to affect residents across the country, the need for supported accommodation is growing rapidly. It is therefore vital that we regulate the market now, before many more vulnerable people are subjected to the horrors that are far too often demonstrated. Once again, I take the opportunity to recommend that individuals read the report of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, which is available from the Vote Office and other good bookshops: it is a right riveting read. That report highlighted the extent to which tenants were abused, forced and manipulated into damaging practices, whether it be prostitution, substance abuse or discouragement from work—I could go on. People are exploited in an unacceptable way.
The main reason that people are referred to supported housing is to receive the constructive support they need to transition back to normality, yet far too often, those  people go backwards as a consequence of damaging malpractice. It is an issue that is popping up in more and more constituencies all over England, highlighting the need for prompt regulation. The sheer volume of money that landlords can make in this corrupt practice is so huge that once others learn of it, they jump on the bandwagon. It is a licence to print masses of money very quickly.

Roger Gale: Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he may resume his speech in a few moments.
Debate interrupted.

Personal Statement

Neil Coyle: The report of the Independent Expert Panel into my conduct has been published today. I want to say how sorry I am for the upset and offence my behaviour caused last year. I wish to specifically apologise to the two complainants who were subject to my drunk and offensive behaviour and attitude. I cannot apologise enough for the harm and upset caused, and I am, frankly, ashamed of my conduct. It should not have happened. No one should leave any MP’s company so shocked or appalled at their inappropriate behaviour or failure to meet the standards rightly expected of this office.
I also apologise to my constituents in Southwark. They faithfully put their trust in me to stand up for their values here in Westminster in three consecutive general elections, and I failed to represent them in the way they deserve or a way they would recognise. I owe a debt of gratitude too large to ever repay to my constituents for the privilege of serving our wonderful, diverse community. I am ashamed that this apology is both necessary and overdue. I apologise to the members of my local Labour party, who also expect me to represent the best of our values in this place, and who last year I also let down so badly.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I also wish to thank the two complainants for their bravery. I do not doubt that it was not easy to submit the complaints. Their courage has ensured that standards have been upheld through an independent process that I was proud to support the establishment of, and that exists to tackle the problematic behaviour I sadly exhibited last year. It is right and proper that I have been held to account and sanctioned accordingly, and I take my punishment on the chin. I fully accept my failings and, again, express my sincere apologies. I will use the time for which I am suspended to reflect on self-improvement, and I have already undergone some training, including on tackling unconscious bias, which I recommend to all Members and their teams.
I owe the complainants my further gratitude for calling out my upsetting words and actions. It forced me to recognise that my drinking had become a dependency and to seek help. On 1 March this week, I celebrated a year since I stopped drinking, and I would not have been able to stop without their effective intervention. In the healthcare I have received since last February, it has also been made abundantly clear to me that, had I not stopped, my drinking would likely have caused a significant stroke or worse. Their intervention has quite possibly saved my life.
Going forward, I will remain abstinent to offer the greatest chance for my own health to continue to improve, for the best relationship with my daughter and family to continue to grow, and for the best service to my constituents to continue. I hope that in speaking out publicly about ending my alcohol dependency, I am also able to support others struggling to maintain or regain control.
In closing, I thank the Speaker’s Office and the wider parliamentary team, including the Whips, the Serjeant at Arms team and those in the health and wellbeing service, for all the support provided over the last 12  months,  especially to enable me to stop drinking. I could not have done it without the tremendous help along the way, especially from my own small team who work wonders for Southwark, and who I will cherish even more for their hard work throughout the difficult, overstretched period I created for them in the last year.
Going forward, I will endeavour to be a stronger ally to the east and south-east Asian community in order to prove my apology to the journalist who had the courage to complain, as well as to my constituents, who too often see the downplaying of the discrimination and hate crime they experience, and to my own family, who I have let down. Two of my brothers have Chinese wives and I have two Chinese nieces and a nephew. I also need to show them that this was an aberration and ensure that they can, once again, be proud of me.
I wholly and unreservedly apologise again for my offensive language and behaviour last year. I know that I let a huge number of people down, and I am sorry to everyone who saw drink get the better of me. I am resolute that it will never happen again.

Roger Gale: I thank the hon. Gentleman and trust that he will have the support of the whole House in maintaining his recovery.

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Debate resumed.

Bob Blackman: I would like to say that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who has just given a personal statement, has been extremely supportive on the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, and I hope we can welcome him back to helping in that regard.
As I was saying before the personal statement, the problem we are experiencing now in many parts of the country is rogue landlords jumping on the bandwagon with the ability literally to print money and exploit vulnerable tenants. The Select Committee report that I referred to highlighted that in many cases, the profit margins are even greater than illegal drug dealing, emphasising that the amount of housing benefit being taken from the public purse shows a clear abuse of the position.
I thank all Members who took part in the Bill Committee. It was an honour to have such an informed, esteemed and engaged group of people to ensure that any potential amendments were debated and considered in depth, taking into account any possible consequences that may arise, because we must look at the unintended consequences that may result from legislation. They were specifically: my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), the hon. Members for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), the hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and last, but by no means least, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook). In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Dr Wallis) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) were not able to make the Committee, but their support was appreciated none the less. The comments, counsel and guidance from the Committee on the Bill were incredibly useful to ensure that all the amendments proposed were appropriate and complemented the Bill’s intentions.
Further, the Committee understood from the outset my vision for the Bill, which is that it is crucial that we drive out the rogue landlords and not hinder the brilliant work done by thousands of organisations across this country, who provide supported housing for those who really need it. I also thank the amazing Clerks in the Public Bill Office for the hard work they have put in to make all this possible. Anne-Marie Griffiths in particular has been on hand to direct the practicalities throughout the process, which has been integral in getting to Third Reading.
On the topic of thanks, I take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in drafting, giving evidence, advising and collaborating on my Bill. It has been a busy 10 months since the private Member’s  Bill ballot was announced. I am wondering what exactly I will do with my extra time once the Bill goes through its final stages. However, the development of the regulations and the consultations required will, I am sure, keep me actively involved.
I met a variety of providers to ensure that those providing a positive service in the sector will not be compromised as a result of the regulation. I have been overwhelmed by the number of providers that genuinely put the needs of tenants first to support and assist them in rebuilding their lives. I have hosted many webinars organised by Homeless Link, Crisis, the London Assembly, the National Housing Federation, the Local Government Association and Birmingham City Council, which provided me with an opportunity to hear directly from large-scale, small-scale and chain providers. That has been invaluable to get a much more detailed perspective and to resolve any anxieties they may retain about the introduction of this regulation.
Additionally, we have co-operated with and listened to many local authorities across England on the concerns and practicalities they envisage. That has helped to steer the conversation so that the regulation is clear and the appropriate guidance and standards will be available for an efficient licensing scheme to be created by local authorities. As the Bill hopefully moves on to the other place, and then begins enactment in the Department, I have assured all bodies that I will continue to hold them to account and ensure that no unintended consequences are caused or extra unnecessary burdens placed on highly principled providers.
Creating the Bill has been a lengthy and frequently uphill challenge, but it has enabled me to work with some incredible people coming together with one main goal. Some of them I was familiar with from my work in the housing sector and on my previous private Member’s Bill, which became the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. Others I have met through this process, and their contributions have shaped the Bill enormously to this point. Crisis, the homelessness charity, has been integral at every stage, providing invaluable support and guidance at all hours of the day and night. Most notably, Jasmine Basran and Sarah Rowe have worked extensively on the policy and logistical aspects of the Bill, providing briefings, advice and counsel, as well as partaking in an unthinkable number of meetings that have taken place over the past nine months.
When I was first drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I approached Crisis informing it I was contemplating the regulation of the exempt accommodation sector. Helpfully, it agreed that this was a beneficial Bill in vital demand and therefore agreed to help draft it, for which I am extremely grateful. Emily Batchelor, Beth Exworth and Martine Martin, who used to be my parliamentary assistant, have also provided enormous support in arranging press releases and briefings to colleagues across the House on the Bill, and in providing secretariat resources for the all-party group for ending homelessness, which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). I have no doubt we will continue these conversations long into the future, to safeguard and review the impact of the Bill on the sector.
Justin Bates from Landmark Chambers was instrumental in drafting the Bill, with his expertise on housing, property and local government law; having edited the erudite “Encyclopaedia of Housing Law and Practice”,  there is little Justin has not learned about the subject, and his knowledge of it has been crucial in drafting the text of the Bill. He astutely pulled together our vision to create a thorough and comprehensive Bill, which I am proud has made it to Third Reading, albeit with assistance from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. I hope it can go through the other place and receive Royal Assent without difficulties or complications.
As the House is aware, during this process we have had the advantage of working with three separate Ministers with the portfolio for housing and homelessness: my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is in his place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) have all been influential in shaping the Bill, in several different ways and several different directions, and allowing it to reach this point. Their guidance, recommendations and flexibility throughout the last six months are hugely appreciated.
I have no doubt that those afflicted by homelessness can trust that their views will continue to be represented fervently and ardently by the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, in her relatively new role, and I appreciate the commitments she gave at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and the amendments she has tabled to aid the Bill. I am confident that, as has been expanded upon, these three amendments will strengthen the Bill’s intentions.
Departmental officials have been a great help in drafting the Bill; they have engaged in countless meetings and conversations with my team and representatives of Crisis, supporting and advising Ministers efficiently on issues affecting the sector. I have also had the pleasure of meeting several direct witnesses of supported housing. Many colleagues in the Chamber today will have listened to Wayne and Ian, both from Crisis Skylight Birmingham, at the “Regulate the Rogues” briefing that took place just before Second Reading. Wayne and Ian both displayed admirable courage and openness when describing their experience of living in supported housing. I am sure we can all agree that sharing such tough times publicly in front of a large group of strangers—telling stories of pure exploitation and deceit—is no easy feat, and I thank them greatly for their vital contributions, which have helped spread awareness of the need to implement regulation and helped engender support for my Bill.
I want to thank the Whips team, as well, for bearing with us during the process; organising a Friday full of debates in the aftermath of a parliamentary away day is no mean feat, as I am sure they will agree, particularly with coach drivers and traffic. Finally, I thank my parliamentary assistant Hattie Shoosmith for all her work in organising meetings and drafting speeches and articles.
Regardless of how seasoned and experienced a Back Bencher is, watching their Bill go through its final stages in the Commons is a truly extraordinary moment. It puts into perspective the intensity of the journey and the impact the Bill will hopefully have when on the statute book. I am, however, especially mindful that this has been possible only thanks to my luck—although I am sure I have questioned on several occasions whether it was good or bad luck—in Madam Deputy Speaker, the  Chairman of Ways and Means, drawing ball number 56 from her glass bowl. However, what matters is how we follow up on that luck.
I hope that the hard work of everyone who has been involved up to this point will be championed in the other place. It is an anxious part of the process for an hon. Member who can only watch from afar, but I am extremely grateful that my good friend Lord Best, who no doubt is in the Gallery today, will be a strong advocate for and custodian of the Bill.
The regulation that the Bill seeks to introduce will be a crucial step in supporting people who are in a compromised situation, whether that is because of substance abuse, domestic violence or leaving prison, or for any other reason. It will give them access to sufficient accommodation and a level of care that will aid their road to normalisation and to standing on their own two feet. It is therefore crucial that there be no complications or amendments in the other place that would hinder the Bill’s progression and allow rogue landlords to continue exploiting the public purse and risking the safety of their tenants.
I thank hon. Members for listening and look forward to hearing their contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.

Gagan Mohindra: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for his excellent Bill, on which I was lucky enough to speak on Second Reading in November. I commend the Minister for her foresight in tabling the Government amendments to which we agreed on Report just now; I hope the whole House agrees that they are an additional benefit. The Bill’s intention has the potential to be misinterpreted, so let us be clear: it is there to protect people in supported accommodation and to support the most vulnerable members of society.
In South West Hertfordshire, we have good housing providers and we provide the right support. There are 136 units of supported housing provided by private registered providers in Three Rivers and 2,541 units of supported housing in Dacorum, of which 536 are provided by private registered providers and the rest by the district council. Unfortunately, there are loopholes in the current system that have been open to exploitation. There is evidence that unscrupulous landlords have been capitalising on those loopholes; I have had numerous pieces of correspondence from constituents saying that people are claiming uncapped housing benefits to make a profit.
The Bill will create a minimum standard for type  and condition of premises, as well as for the care and support provided. There has been a clear correlation between high concentrations of exempt accommodation and antisocial behaviour and crime. Poor quality of housing—with every room, including communal areas, being turned into a bedroom to make a greater profit for the provider—has led to organised criminal gangs and increased levels of vermin and rubbish, with knock-on consequences for neighbours and for the community as a whole. That creates a risk that local support for these types of dwellings will be undermined.
Lack of data is a really important point that we have debated before in this Chamber. Some 153,700 households in Great Britain were housed in exempt accommodation in May 2021, but the lack of data means that the problem could be much more widespread than even that figure suggests. In some areas of the country, the number of people living in exempt accommodation has doubled in just a few years. That shows the urgency of the issue. Demand is growing and will continue to grow, so we really need to get a handle on this.
I am conscious that several excellent colleagues wish to speak, so I will shorten my comments and end with a point about taxpayers’ money. There is no publicly available data on Government expenditure on exempt accommodation. As we all know, the Government have no money—the money belongs to taxpayers—so we always need to think about value for money. We cannot just throw money at the issue. It is more than possible that the Government may need to spend even more, but we need a better understanding of the issue, and that will be driven by increased data. In the current economic climate, we need to be a lot more conscious of saving the pennies and the pounds.

Matthew Pennycook: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I commend once again the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for introducing this extremely important Bill, and congratulate him on piloting it through Committee to its Third Reading today. Let me take the opportunity, as he did, to thank again all those who have contributed to the development and drafting of the Bill, including Justin Bates, Joe Thomas, Sam Lister, the team at Crisis and, we must not forget, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes).
The Opposition regret how long we have had to wait for legislation to address exploitation and profiteering at the hands of rogue exempt accommodation operators, and the fact that progress in this area has been dependent on the ongoing success of the hon. Member for Harrow East in the private Member’s Bill ballot. We have been clear since the Bill was published that we support the measures in it, as a means to enhance local authority oversight of supported housing and enable local authorities to drive up standards in their areas. As we have long argued, a robust framework of national standards for the sector is essential. There is an open and shut case for better regulating the eligibility for—and therefore access to—exempt benefit claims at local level.
That said, our position has always been that the Bill could be strengthened in important ways. As the House may recall, we made a number of specific suggestions to that end on Second Reading. They included new planning powers to allow local authorities to proactively manage their local supported housing markets; enhanced provisions for national monitoring and oversight; augmenting the list of new banning order offences; and establishing evaluation and improvement notice procedures, so  that local authorities can drive up standards without implementing a full licensing regime. We remain of the view that those suggestions have merit, and we believe that they will need to be revisited if the Bill fails to deliver in the way that we all hope it will.
We welcome the three Government amendments that have been incorporated into the Bill, particularly amendment 2, which was initially pressed by my hon.  Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) in Committee. As the Minister made clear, the amendment provides for conditions relating to needs assessments to be attached to a licence. We believe that the three amendments improve the legislation and we support them. However, although the Bill has undoubtedly been strengthened by their incorporation, there remain a number of important issues that we feel still need to be resolved, and I want to take the opportunity to speak briefly to three of them.
The first relates to methods of enforcing new national standards short of licensing. As hon. Members will know, although the Bill places a duty on all local authorities to publish a supported housing strategy,  it does not require them all to implement a licensing scheme as a means of enforcing the new national supported housing standards that it introduces. On balance, we agree that the adoption of licensing of supported exempt accommodation should be optional. However, the fact that it will be gives rise to the possibility not only that local authorities with large amounts of badly run exempt accommodation could ultimately choose not to license, but that local authorities with limited resources or only one or two problematic providers will not be in a position to introduce licensing schemes and will therefore be unable to properly enforce new national standards.
We appreciate fully that the Government intend to consult on this matter under the duties set out in clause 6, but we urge Ministers to agree in principle now that there is a strong case for providing for a range of different enforcement options, in terms both of their strength and to whom they apply. In particular, we encourage the Minister to give serious consideration to giving local authorities powers analogous to those in part 1 of the Housing Act 2004, which provides for the housing health and safety rating system, hazard awareness notices and improvement notice procedures. As the Minister will know, outside large urban areas, most local authorities have only a handful of officers—if that—in their private rented sector teams. We need to ensure that there is a suite of options short of licensing that will allow smaller authorities to bear down on the problem.
The second issue relates to local authority resourcing. The Bill will place additional requirements on local authorities to carry out reviews of supported exempt accommodation in their districts and to publish supported housing strategies. In addition, authorities that believe it necessary to adopt licensing schemes and are in a position to do so will face additional costs as a result. In Committee, the Minister confirmed that a new burdens assessment will be made, but he seemed to imply that it would relate only to setting up supported housing strategies and the initial set-up of licensing schemes. We are therefore concerned that local authorities, ultimately, may not receive any support for ongoing costs, particularly in relation to licensing schemes. We would welcome some assurance from the Minister that the net additional cost of any new burdens arising from the Bill will be fully and properly funded and, if not, how the Government believe the ongoing costs can be made self-financing.
The third and final issue relates to the regulation of non-profit-making providers who let some properties at below-market rents, while letting others at market rents that are eligible for housing benefit support without coming within the scope of consumer regulation. We raised that matter at Committee stage of the Social  Housing (Regulation) Bill, because it is a regulatory loophole that is being exploited by unscrupulous exempt accommodation providers, and this Bill contains no obvious provisions to close it. Indeed, our fear is that once the Bill receives Royal Assent, rogue providers of supported exempt accommodation will be incentivised to exploit the loophole in question further, as it will be one of the few that remain. We believe that the loophole can be successfully closed using the framework provided by the Bill, perhaps by using regulation to introduce passporting powers in respect of licensing schemes so that only those providers with a double-compliant grade could be automatically passported. I urge the Minister to give the matter further consideration and would be more than happy to engage with her on it.
Those specific concerns aside, we very much welcome the fact that the Bill will complete its passage today. It is not a panacea, but it will undoubtedly help to put rogue exempt accommodation operators out of business and better enable local authorities to drive up supported housing standards in their areas. In doing so, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, it will improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society and bring relief to communities struggling to cope with the impact of concentrated numbers of badly run exempt accommodation properties. We recognise that today is a significant, important step forward and we are very pleased to give the Bill our support.

Jonathan Gullis: I appreciate that many Members wish to speak, so I will keep my remarks brief. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a veteran in being successful in private Members’ Bills ballots. I have long watched him. I used him as an example when I was in the classroom teaching sixth-form A-level politics students and he put through the House the Homelessness Reduction Bill, now the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017. That is a fantastic piece of legislation, and it demonstrates the power that Back Benchers have to influence Government policy, engaging with all sides of the House to bring forward positive change. He deserves enormous credit for his incredible work to be a strong voice for, in many cases, the voiceless in our society.
I could not agree more on the importance of this Bill. We have really good providers in Stoke-on-Trent, whether Concrete or Brighter Futures. The latter charitable organisation is currently being supported by the Lord Mayor of Stoke-on-Trent, raising money to help people who have come out of prison, or who are recovering from alcohol and drug addiction and so on, to get set up in a home and rebuild their lives. They are fantastic examples of organisations that have, and will have, nothing to fear from this Bill, because they are fine examples of what a good landlord should be doing. It is absolutely correct that the only people who will loudly moan and groan about it are the rogue landlords who seek to profiteer off the back of hardship and misery, seeking to take advantage of the defenceless who they know will not have a strong voice.
I introduced my own private Members’ Bill to increase fines on rogue and absent landlords under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, because of the degradation of the Price and Kensington Teapot  Works by a rogue landlord, who allowed fires to be set up on site and used it as a dumping site. That important grade II* listed building in Longport is now rotting and is sadly probably damaged beyond repair. I thank the Minister and the team from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities for adopting my proposed legislation into the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is currently going through the House—I am lucky to be able to piggy-back off the back of Government legislation to get my own private Member’s Bill through the House.
On the scheme, I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), in his concern about the cost of implementation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council is the second poorest in terms of what it brings in through council tax. Some 94% of our properties are band A to D, so when we put up council tax by 1% it brings in £900,000, whereas a council in Surrey would bring in £13 million. It will therefore be really important to find the funds to ensure that we deliver the scheme. That financial support will have to come from the taxpayer via the Government to ensure it can be enforced. Stoke-on- Trent will have a higher than average use of that kind of supported accommodation. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has tried schemes, such as the landlord accreditation scheme in Portland Street in the Etruria and Hanley ward, which I represent, but sadly it was a voluntary scheme that only good landlords signed up to and took part in. Rogue landlords avoided it. That meant we did not really get the benefit of holding them to account.
I am very supportive of the universal local licensing scheme. We absolutely should be looking to hold landlords to account. They have the great honour of owning these properties, so it is only right that they look after the tenants who currently pay such extortionately high rents. Sadly, we are not building as many homes as I would like, to increase home ownership and drive down cost in the rental market.
The licensing regulations and, most importantly, the support package that have come forward are essential. As the Minister outlined perfectly in her speech, vulnerable people should be assessed before they move into a property and a tailored plan should be designed for them. These people are stakeholders in our society and they need that support to ensure that they get back on the ladder and do not have to rely on friends and families for support when they have their own lives to be concerned about.
We also have to make sure that we find such houses in appropriate places so that we are not clumping or clustering vulnerable people together. Sadly, that will attract levels of antisocial behaviour and will increase the presence of vile drug gangs or county lines gangs, as has happened especially in Stoke-on-Trent North, who try to push their filth on the streets around those who are vulnerable. We need to make sure that we do all we can in that regard to have a properly regulated licensing scheme. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East on his fantastic Bill.

Paul Howell: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this important issue  into the spotlight. It will be no surprise that I am pleased to endorse the Bill’s provisions and I am pleased that it has received cross-party support.
Let us keep in mind why the system exists. Simply, it acknowledges that the cost of managing shared supported accommodation can be higher than the average and that not-for-profit organisations’ supported housing services may be unviable if benefit levels are limited using the same rules as for mainstream private renting. What we have witnessed recently, however, is a minority of investors looking to maximise returns using the higher rents permitted by the exempt housing benefit schemes. In simple terms, unscrupulous agencies are now exploiting gaps in the regulatory regime to claim higher benefit levels while providing minimal levels of support, which often results in poor housing conditions and ineffective care and support for vulnerable residents. We cannot allow those practices to continue.
In the same way, however, I have concerns about absentee landlords in part of my Sedgefield constituency, who exploit the lower property costs in the north and do not look after their properties to the extent that they should for the tenants or for the local residents. Typically, they exploit the same cohort of vulnerable residents who we are talking about today.
Durham County Council has a registered landlords scheme that attempts to address failing landlords. I encourage it to urgently focus on the worst offenders, because too often it goes for the easy target of the good landlords. Landlords such as me want those people out—we want the worst offenders to be threatened—to ensure that we have the right accommodation for people. I have given a few specific cases to the council, such as places in Ferryhill and Station Town, where good streets are being undermined by the degradation of one property that pulls the whole area down. I would appreciate the council’s focus on that, because those absentee landlords just do not care.
That being said, when delivered well, exempt accommodation not only plays a useful role in providing good-quality transitional accommodation and support for people as they move on from homelessness, but often serves as a vital progenitor of social rehabilitation through the accommodation of some of society’s most marginalised groups. They include prison leavers, people leaving national asylum seeker services, people fleeing domestic abuse and others whose homelessness is compounded by factors such as substance dependence or mental health needs.
To that end, the crux of my contribution is to emphasise the urgent need for further investigation to quantify the scale and profile of exempt provision and the extent to which providers in any area are considered problematic. If the Bill is the first in an inevitable sequence of legislative proposals, we as legislators must be in full possession of quantifiable data. That is the only way to legislate effectively and responsibly as we crack down on the problem.
Regardless of the scale and the minor gaps in national data, however, it is clear that swift action is needed to safeguard the interests of those whose life chances are already being damaged by poor-quality exempt provision and to prevent further escalation of the problem. I commend the Bill.

Sally-Ann Hart: It is a pleasure to speak on Third Reading of this important Bill put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). Supported living—supported housing—gives some of the most vulnerable people in our communities a safe haven. It offers them the most choice and control over their lives, and a chance to live a life like everyone else around them. Supported living can have an enormous positive impact on an individual’s quality of life—from their physical and mental health to their engagement with the community.
In 2020, the Government announced the national statement of expectations for supported housing, setting out their vision for ways of working in the sector and recommendations for standards in accommodation. This was an important step in establishing what good supported housing looks like and how it can be achieved.
Most supported housing providers deliver high-quality accommodation and go above and beyond minimum standards. However, it is vital not only that all supported housing is of high quality, but that the people who need the support have the accommodation that meets their needs and allows them to thrive—the right support in the right place—and that the vulnerable are protected from unscrupulous people who seek to take advantage of them. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but best practice also involves collaboration across housing, health, commissioners, providers and the third sector.
We have some fantastic supported housing organisations across beautiful Hastings and Rye—Aspens comes to mind, as well as Support 4 Independent Living. East Sussex County Council works really hard through its supported accommodation team to support providers who have houses, flats, or self-contained bedsits to provide accommodation, and assist tenants referred by adult social care services, and I am sure that the team would welcome this Bill. We have a very high level of need for supported housing services not only in Hastings and Rye, but across east Sussex, and local authority funding needs to better reflect this high need and I ask the Minister to consider that.
I note and welcome the Government’s amendments, further clarifying the licensing powers included in the Bill. This is a Bill that will help some of the most vulnerable in our society and I wish it well as it progresses through the House.

Felicity Buchan: It is a pleasure to speak briefly on Third Reading. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on introducing this important Bill, and I thank him for his tireless efforts. This crucial Bill is key to stopping the exploitation of vulnerable people by rogue landlords operating poor-quality supported housing. I am determined to put an end to this abuse of the system.
In parts of the country there has been a growth in accommodation with little or even no support being provided, but where landlords are charging extortionate levels of rent, paid for through housing benefit. That is an abuse of the system and it puts people who should be receiving support at risk. The Government had already  set out our intention to regulate the supported housing sector, and my hon. Friend’s Bill will bring in that much-needed regulation.
Let me be clear: we will do what we have to do to get ahead and stay ahead of rogue providers and make sure that supported housing is of good quality for all residents. These vulnerable people have often already reached a crisis point and it is crucial that they get the support that they need and deserve to help rebuild their lives.
The Bill will ensure that supported housing is of good quality for the residents living in it and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) said, also good value for money for the taxpayer. The Government have committed to acting as quickly as possible. To that end, I shall repeat the commitment that I made on Second Reading to make regulations for the licensing scheme within 18 months of the Bill’s passing. In reply to the shadow Minister’s question, let me confirm that there will be a new burdens assessment. We envisage that over time the licensing scheme will become self-funding, but there will be a proper new burdens assessment, and we would expect the set-up of the scheme to be included in that.
Let me end by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East for introducing this important Bill. I also thank the charity Crisis, and my predecessors in this role—my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is present, and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I thank all the members of the Select Committee, and all those who served on the Bill Committee, many of whom are here today. Finally, I thank all my officials who have helped me with the Bill, including Darrell Smith, Emma Stubbs, Sarah Carpenter, Richard Loftman and Cathy Page, our legal adviser Melissa Spurling, and my private secretary, Ed Culliney.

Bob Blackman: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), as well as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), whom I thank for his constructive support throughout the Bill’s passage, and, of course, my hon. Friend the Minister.
Thousands of organisations up and down the country do a brilliant job in helping vulnerable people. They have nothing to fear from this Bill, and we must keep emphasising that. Unfortunately, however, a growing number of rogue landlords are seeking to exploit the fact that vulnerable people need additional support and therefore have access to additional housing benefit and other additional benefits. It is right for them to have that access because they are vulnerable and need to rebuild their lives, but unfortunately an increasing number of rogues are seeking to exploit our generosity in helping them, so as the Bill leaves this House the message must be loud and clear: the time in which the rogue landlords have been able to exploit those vulnerable people is rapidly coming to an end.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her work, and for setting out her stall today with the regulations that we need to introduce and the consultations that are needed to ensure that we get those regulations right. Housing authorities throughout the country will need to consider setting up licensing arrangements, and they should start to think now about what they will need  to do.
This is a proud moment for me. Having worked on the Bill for 10 months, I leave it in the excellent hands of my good friend Lord Best, who I am sure will ferry it safely through the other place towards Royal Assent and the statute book.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
Third Reading

Greg Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Throughout the Bill’s passage so far, I have sought to make the case for what is essentially a very simple idea, but one that could potentially have a huge impact on the people and businesses up and down the land who suffer so badly when the equipment that they need to go about their business is stolen. This applies predominantly to quad bikes and all-terrain vehicles, which are specified in the Bill, but secondary legislation would enable the Bill to be expanded to cover other equipment such as tradespeople’s tools.
When such equipment is stolen, it is not just a minor inconvenience. It is not just a case of saying, “Well, we will go down to the shops, or go on Amazon and order another.” Thefts such as these can put people out of work or out of business for days, weeks or even months, with considerable costs to meet before the insurance is paid—or indeed, in some cases, if it is paid. I am confident that the provisions in this Bill to demand that immobilisers are fitted to all new quads and all-terrain vehicles at point of sale and that forensic marking—of a standard that will make a significant difference—is applied to those pieces of machinery will, first, deter would-be criminals from stealing them in the first place and, secondly, give our hard-working police officers up and down the land a meaningful tool to be able to say, “We know where that piece of equipment came from. We know where it was stolen from. We know who the rightful owner is.” That will enable them not only to return it to the rightful owner, but, more significantly, prevent its resale, taking away the point of anybody’s wishing to steal it in the first place. Let us be honest: the thieves of quad bikes, machinery and equipment are not stealing those things to use them. They are not using the quad bikes to round up sheep anywhere; they are not stealing power tools to do some DIY at home. They are stealing that equipment to sell and monetise it, and if they cannot do so because of the forensic marking upon it, they will not steal it in the first place.
The genesis of this Bill was a community Facebook page in my Buckingham constituency, following a spate of thefts from trades vans in the town. Local people put their heads together and came up with the idea for a mechanism to disincentivise the resale of stolen goods, starting with trying to set up a national database of serial numbers. Over the months since I was lucky enough to be drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have worked closely with the police and many others to work out how we can make such a mechanism work. I give a lot of credit and thanks to Superintendent Andy Huddleston, a Northumbria officer who is the national lead on rural crime.
Through consultation with police forces, including my own home force in Thames Valley, where Superintendent Hutchings leads the rural crime taskforce, with other police officers, the National Farmers Union, the Countryside Alliance, the Country Land and Business Association and many farmers in my own patch, as well as the manufacturers and the organisations representing  them, we came up with what I hope is a consensual set of measures that will make a difference. We have shaken down all the things that could get in the way; for example, the original idea of serial numbers was quickly dismissed, because for many manufacturers those serial numbers are not unique. Instead, we opted to put everything into forensic marking and to include measures on immobilisers specific to quad bikes.
Those less familiar with rural communities might ask, “Is this such a huge priority?” I must say categorically that it is. Quad bike thefts have been running at between 800 and 1,100 per year in recent years. Conferring with the police earlier today, I reconfirmed some of the latest figures. Let me give a comparison: in January 2022, across the country, 52 quad bikes were stolen, but in January this year that number was up to 78. The numbers for larger machinery, particularly agricultural machinery, are even more frightening: in January 2022 there were 29 thefts of large machines, but in January 2023, I am afraid the number was up to 131. In February 2022 it was 19, but in February this year it was 122.
Such theft is a considerable problem for rural communities across the whole of our United Kingdom; NFU Mutual, which insures the vast majority of agricultural machinery in the country, has released figures suggesting that it paid out approximately £2.2 million on agricultural thefts in 2021 alone. Likewise, the Countryside Alliance’s rural crime survey shows that 43% of respondents had been the victim of rural crime, with 32% of them saying that the crime was the theft of equipment.
Equipment theft is a huge problem that we have to tackle, and this framework Bill gives my right hon. Friend the Minister the ability in secondary legislation to define the forensic marking standards that are needed and, indeed, to expand forensic marking to equipment types beyond quad bikes, ATVs and side-by-sides. I am confident that this will make a massive difference by preventing crime and ensuring that people who rely on such equipment to go about their daily business, be that farming, food production or another trade, have much greater confidence that their equipment is safe and will be there when they start work.
I understand there is some criticism that the cost to the end user will be an additional burden but, given that forensic marking costs between £20 and £30 per product and an immobiliser fitted at the point of sale, rather than in the factory, costs between £70 and £100, the cost of ensuring that equipment is safe and has less chance of being stolen is not very high at all, particularly when we factor in the expected reduction in annual insurance premiums for such products, which many in the industry inform me will more than offset the initial cost of this measure at the point of purchasing a new quad bike, a new tractor GPS unit or whatever equipment it might be.
The police say the Bill will make a huge difference and, having grown up in a police family, I put an enormous amount of trust in our police. I want to ensure that the professionals who go out each day to keep us and our property safe have every power, resource, law and regulation they need to deter would-be criminals, and to bring to justice those who commit crime. I have great confidence that this Bill will do that.
I am grateful to the Minister for supporting the Bill’s passage so far. Likewise, I am grateful to the Opposition for supporting it on Second Reading and in Committee.  I hope that spirit of co-operation will continue under the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). With the support of colleagues, I look forward to the Bill passing and going to the other place before finally, I hope, becoming an Act.

Rob Butler: It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), my constituency neighbour, on introducing this important Bill, to which I am pleased to have contributed in Committee. It will be a fitting birthday present for him if it passes Third Reading today.
The Bill sets out much-needed changes that are straightforward, practical and will, as my hon. Friend says, no doubt help to reduce rural crime. From visiting farms in my constituency, I know how much the theft of machinery concerns farmers and the increasing impact it has had over the past few years. Indeed, the Countryside Alliance’s 2022 rural crime survey, which had more than 2,000 responses, underlines the extent of the problem, with 15% of respondents reporting having experienced the theft of agricultural machinery in that one year alone. Machinery theft was second only to fly-tipping.
As my hon. Friend says, it is no exaggeration to say that farmers depend on their machinery for their livelihood. Deprived of that equipment, farmers are simply unable to work as efficiently, and their ability to generate revenue is diminished. Not only that, but there is the costly, slow and sometimes stressful process of replacing the stolen machinery. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in this Bill. It is crucial that farmers are given support to deter criminals from stealing their machinery and, in particular, the all-terrain vehicles specified in the Bill.
It is worth noting that demand for ATVs has grown recently at a rate that has outstripped the readily available supply. That, of course, increases the incentive for those with criminal intent, because they know they will be able to sell what they steal. The National Farmers Union has reported that members are having to wait three to six months to obtain one of these vehicles. That means the vehicles are especially lucrative because not only are they highly sought-after and easily portable, but there is a ready resale market in this country and, indeed, abroad. NFU Mutual’s annual rural crime survey stated that quad bike and ATV theft amounted to £2.2 million in 2021, which is not an insignificant sum.
Most of us will know from our own experience with cars that immobilisers are a tried and tested deterrent. When affixed to ATVs, they make them more secure. Their value is clear: since 1992, all new cars in the UK have been built with an immobiliser and, in the following 30 years, vehicle theft plummeted by an incredible 43%. While other factors may have contributed, data produced by the Home Office demonstrated a strong correlation between the increased fitting of immobilisers and the reduction in stolen vehicles. In the light of that, the standardised fitting of these devices on all new-build ATVs and the retrofitting of them to other vehicles prior to sale could prove to be a relatively cheap and highly effective approach.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has had the foresight in his Bill to consider not only the prevention of theft, but, where that sadly fails, the recovery of ATVs that have been stolen. The forensic marking he described should enable police forces to identify the ATVs they recover and more easily return them to their rightful owners. Furthermore, requiring sellers to record details of the sale, including information about the vehicle and the buyer, is key to the success of the Bill’s aims and provides an appropriate audit trail.
I am pleased to hear that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is considering extending the Bill’s provisions, as and when appropriate, to go beyond ATVs and include other equipment and commercial tools—a subject that was much discussed in Committee. Tool theft regularly afflicts an array of trades beyond farming, such as roofers, electricians and plumbers. Presently, the second-hand tool market is unregulated. That means that sellers have no obligation to prove the origin of their items or even to evidence the original purchase. It has been argued quite understandably that this encourages and facilitates the theft of tools. As with farmers, not only is the loss of equipment an immediate financial loss for tradespeople; it prevents them from working and can disrupt the schedule of their building projects, causing frustration to them and their customers.
The help that my hon. Friend’s Bill provides is necessary and timely. It is not right that security is such a significant concern for many farmers. The provision of immobilisers, forensic marking and recording of the sale of ATVs will reduce the likelihood that they will fall victim to this crime, which, as I have outlined, has an impact well beyond the immediate loss of the vehicle. I applaud my hon. Friend for the work he has done. I am absolutely confident that farmers in my constituency, as well as his, and across the entire country would benefit from this legislation. I look forward to his Bill making its way on to the statute book as soon as possible.

James Wild: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on reaching this stage, and I look forward to his Bill hopefully passing later today. I also wish him a happy birthday. The Bill makes important changes to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools that are essential to agricultural businesses in North West Norfolk and across the country. The Bill has a relatively limited initial scope aimed at preventing the theft of quad bikes and ATVs, but I was pleased, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) just referred to, that the Minister confirmed during Committee that the Government intend to extend the provisions beyond agricultural equipment to commercial tools as well.
There is currently no legal requirement to fit immobilisers or forensic marking to machinery and equipment, although some manufacturers choose to do so on a voluntary basis. By addressing that gap, the Bill will help to reduce this type of theft. In addition, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to require records to be kept relating to equipment that has been sold and its buyers.
Rural crime, in particular agricultural machinery theft, has a significant impact on my constituents. The proportion of suspects being charged for offences in towns and cities is 24% higher than in the countryside, and that imbalance must be addressed. Data published by NFU Mutual in its rural crime report of 2022 estimated the cost of rural theft to be £40 million, of which £5 million was in the east of England. Some £10 million was agricultural vehicle theft, but it is broader than that. Anyone who has watched the latest series of “Clarkson’s Farm” will have seen that it raised the issue of GPS devices being stolen regularly, and I hope the Bill will be extended to deal with that issue.
The Countryside Alliance’s rural crime survey presented stark statistics, with 32% of respondents reporting having experienced agricultural machinery theft, making it the second most reported crime, just 3% behind fly-tipping. Unsurprisingly, the rural crime survey found that agricultural machinery theft was respondents’ top priority for the police to tackle.
As we have heard, an estimated 900 to 1,200 quad bikes and ATVs are stolen each year, and this theft is damaging the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency and across the country. The cost of that theft is around £2.2 million. After a fall in the number of these thefts during the pandemic, for understandable reasons, they are now on the increase. Quad bikes and ATVs are essential to farming and land management, and have become a crucial piece of equipment to get around on a farm instead of using a tractor, whether that is to check livestock, move animals, move feedstock or set up fences, as well as many other uses.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham has consulted widely; he gave a long list of the organisations he has worked with to get the Bill to this position. I am confident from the evidence I have seen that regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking will lead to a substantial reduction in this type of theft. I noted with interest in the explanatory notes that the proportion of road vehicles with immobilisers fitted increased to 98% between 1993 and 2013, which led to a decline of up to 45% in such thefts.
There is also a wider problem of tool theft. A report found that nearly four in five tradespeople had experienced tool theft, which is a striking statistic. While the financial cost of this theft is more easily quantifiable, it also has a damaging impact on people’s health and wellbeing.
I represent a rural constituency, and I believe it is important to introduce the regulations on ATVs as soon as possible. The Minister has indicated that he wants to do so by Christmas. While I support the extension of the Bill’s provisions to cover more agricultural and other equipment, any extra time required to develop that extension should not affect the plan to have the regulations in place by Christmas. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham for his important work on getting the Bill to this stage, and I look forward to supporting it this afternoon.

Ruth Jones: I am pleased to  be able to contribute to the debate. I congratulate the  hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing the Bill forward and wish him a happy birthday— penblwydd hapus.
The Bill introduces a number of solutions to the growing problem of the theft of quad bikes and other all-terrain vehicles. We know from the National Farmers Union that there are between 800 and 1,100 thefts of ATVs every year. Aside from the financial cost, which is bad enough, there is the issue of the physical replacement of these vehicles. That can take months and hampers the vital work that farmers do to feed us and provide other important things for our country; I am thinking especially of the hill farmers in north Wales, who are very hard hit by the theft of these sorts of vehicles.
The introduction of these common-sense solutions—immobilisers, forensic marking and the setting up of a registration database—is so sensible. At the risk of incurring Mr Deputy Speaker’s wrath, I make a plea for the use of SmartWater, which is so important for not just farm vehicles but all items, to discourage and deter thefts and enable the police to return stolen items to their rightful owners very quickly. Forensic marking is so important.
I do not mean to detain the House for too long. I am sure Members from across the House will join me in thanking the hon. Member for Buckingham for bringing this positive and proactive piece of legislation before the House today.

Anthony Browne: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) on bringing forward this private Member’s Bill, and on his birthday as well—hopefully, seeing his Bill pass its Third Reading will be a fantastic birthday present for him. Like my various colleagues, I welcome the scope extension to include tradesmen and their tools, but I will concentrate my comments on the original rural focus of the Bill.
Like my various colleagues, I have a rural constituency; I have many farmers in my constituency, and whenever I ask them what their key concerns are and how we can help, rural crime is always one of their top concerns. Indeed, just at the end of last year, I had a meeting with local farmers in the village of Abington Pigotts, which incidentally has a wonderful pub called the Pig & Abbot. Anyone who is in the area should visit that pub. There were 30 farmers there, and we were talking about rural crime. I did a little poll: I asked, “Who has experienced rural crime in the past year?”, and every single one of those 30 farmers stuck up their hand. Every single one had been a victim of rural crime in the past year.
The police do their best. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned the hard work of the police, and I know they work hard in Cambridgeshire, but it is often very difficult to crack down on rural crime. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) mentioned, urban crimes have a 25% higher enforcement rate than rural crimes. That is not just in South Cambridgeshire, obviously, but in all rural areas: when the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution did its big farming survey, 38% of farmers said that they had been victims of rural crime in the past year. Cereal farmers, who make up a large part of my farming community, are the hardest hit, with 51%—more than half—being victims of rural crime. As such, I fully appreciate and support the intent of the Bill.
It is easy for people to dismiss the seriousness of rural crime; it is often seen as something that we do not really need to worry about. Quad bikes and ATVs, which are the focus of the Bill, are often viewed as leisure vehicles by many members of the public—they see advertisements for quad bike adventures, something that can be done in my constituency as well—but for farmers, they are serious working vehicles. Various hon. Friends have mentioned how dependent farmers are on their equipment to make a living. For farmers, those quad bikes and ATVs make them far more efficient when covering large areas; without them, they simply cannot do the work. Many farmers work on very tight margins, and having farm equipment operational makes the difference between making money for the year, enabling them to pay their wages, and losing money. Having proper, working farm equipment is crucial to people’s livelihoods. That is why agricultural machinery theft was reported to be a top priority for the police to tackle in the 2020 rural crime survey.
Quad bikes and ATVs make particularly attractive targets. They are obviously transportable: a thief can load them on to a trailer or a lorry and whisk them away very easily. They often have poor security features that do little to deter those thieves. Their value on the second-hand market has increased recently, making them even more attractive as targets—that is because of the supply chain issues that make it quite difficult to order new ones, as we heard earlier. Currently, it takes three to six months to get a replacement vehicle, which is an incredibly long time for a farmer to cope without vital equipment.
As such, I fully welcome the measures in the Bill to clamp down on this problem: they make a lot of common sense. Cars have had immobilisers on them for over 20 years, and it is time that ATVs and quad bikes followed suit. Immobilisers act as a significant deterrent by making vehicles much harder to steal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham mentioned, this is not just about making it easier to catch vehicles afterwards, but about deterring the crime in the first place.
A vehicle register also seems like a natural step to take, as better record keeping will help put an end to the grey markets that the criminals tend to operate in. During my research for this speech, I came across the CESAR scheme—the construction and agricultural equipment security and registration scheme—which has a database of ownership and covert markings. That scheme has reported a 60% decline in thefts since it came into operation in 2008, and I hope this Bill will be the catalyst for a similar trend in quad bikes and ATVs.
The Bill will save farmers much aggravation from the fallout and cost of theft. It will be good for police, because it will hopefully reduce the amount of work they have to do, and if there are cases of theft, they will be easier for police to track down and solve. It will also lead to a reduction in insurance premiums over time, which will be incredibly welcome for farmers while energy prices and the cost of living are so high.
This and any Bill that tackles rural crime will always have my wholehearted support. We need to level up our response to crimes committed outside cities. I am glad to see that organisations such as the NFU and the Countryside Alliance, which I know are important in  my constituency and elsewhere, fully support the Bill. I support it, and I hope it makes speedy passage through the Lords.

Chris Loder: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and wish him a very happy birthday. I say to other Members of the House that I believe the Bill we have in front of us is an important step in tackling the crime issues we have in this country, particularly in rural Britain and rural England.
I declare an interest to the House, as I am a tenant beef farmer’s son. I believe that the Bill will benefit farms across West Dorset and further afield, because it looks to mitigate the risks that come to pass when equipment is stolen. Those who have businesses in rural settings, particularly but not exclusively farmers, have had to deal with an appalling level of crime, and particularly theft, for far too long. I am pleased that the Bill brings forward measures to not just mitigate the situation but deter those thefts.
In West Dorset, I have been concerned about theft and crime. I am aware that the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and his Department have done a lot of work in this space and will continue to do so. The Bill builds on the increase in police funding that we have seen in Dorset. We debated police funding in the House a few weeks ago, and I am very pleased to see the improvement for Dorset; for a long time it has been much wanted and called for. None the less, we still have difficulties, and the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will help with them.
In the past year, we have seen 253 reported incidents of rural crime in Dorset—that is five per week. These are not all thefts of quad bikes or similar equipment; they are often thefts of expensive pieces of farm equipment, which can hugely interrupt local businesses, whether they are farmers, builders or other small businesses. It is hugely disruptive.
The most common type of rural crime in Dorset is the theft of machinery, tools and vehicles, which accounts for 43% of all reported incidents that we see. I am aware that the Bill does not include some of the other thefts we see, including animal rustling and so on. I hope that the Minister will take away from this debate the fact that I and, it is safe to say, my neighbouring colleagues in Dorset feel very strongly about those things. I hope we will see some progress accordingly.
In 2020, we had 23 reported incidents of theft of high-value farm machinery. Just so I am clear what we are talking about, that means tractors, telehandlers and other large equipment such as diggers and so on. As I said, that is hugely disruptive. I am very hopeful that the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will make progress on dealing with that. The deterrent it brings will be hugely valuable. I congratulate him again on bringing forward the Bill, which will be of great value to all rural communities.

Sally-Ann Hart: This private Member’s Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), seeks to prevent the theft and resale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople and agricultural and other businesses. Importantly, the Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to make regulations requiring immobilisers and forensic marking to be fitted to all new ATVs, quad bikes or other vehicles. Immobilisers will protect them against hot-wiring or the use of imitation keys by unscrupulous thieves, and forensic marking will help police officers to identify a vehicle easily using a handheld scanner or ultraviolet torch and verify the true owner. Those measures will make a stolen vehicle harder to sell on, which will have a deterrent effect.
I spoke on Second Reading in December, and I do not want to repeat myself, but theft is wrong, and the people who perpetrate theft are lazy. Theft not only harms the owner of the stolen items, because they suffer the loss, but it disrespects the owner and our society, and it devalues a person by deeming the items stolen more important than the victim of the theft. Theft also harms the thief, because it devalues them and makes it easier to steal more often.
Equipment and tool theft is common across the UK. Research by the Federation of Master Builders estimated that in 2019, eight in 10 builders had had their tools stolen. Tool theft is a concern for many tradespeople, and the most common targets are those who store and transport their equipment in vans. We have a problem with the rural theft of agricultural equipment, and I welcome the Countryside Alliance’s support for this Bill. It has assisted in developing the Bill, along with other stakeholders in farming, insurance, equipment manufacturing and the police.
The new 2022 rural crime survey shows that 43% of respondents reported having had a crime committed against them in the past year. Of those, 35% reported having experienced agricultural machinery theft. That was the second most reported crime, just 3 percentage points behind fly-tipping, which is another issue.
To coin a phrase, it is
“my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest valleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.”
The theft of tools is an issue across trades, with roofers and electricians among those most likely to be victims of tool theft. In Committee, it was encouraging that the Government indicated that they intend to extend the Bill’s provisions beyond agricultural equipment to other commercial tools. I welcome the news that the Government will expand the scope of the Bill, and that the Home Office has established the stolen goods working group.
To conclude, I support this Bill and I congratulate my hon. Friend on it. I wish the Bill success as it moves to the other place.

Jane Hunt: I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and also wish him a happy birthday. The Countryside Alliance recently conducted an annual survey of rural communities’ experiences  and perceptions. The 2021 survey revealed that 43% of  respondents reported having had a crime committed against them in the past year. Of those, 32% reported having experienced agricultural theft, which was the third most reported crime. In the 2020 survey, agricultural machinery theft was reported as respondents’ top priority for police to tackle. That is what the Bill is about.
In my case, a local farmer in Loughborough has recently been targeted, having had £2,000-worth of GPS equipment stolen from a tractor. He highlighted that it is a common occurrence and that he has already taken extensive security measures on the farm, which cost a great deal of money, following previous thefts, including locked gates at every entrance, video cameras, motion activation sirens and locks on all sheds. However, unfortunately, machinery often has to be left in the fields in remote locations during busy times of the year, which is when criminals tend to strike. I would therefore be keen for all types of farming equipment to be included in the registration process. He is a farmer whom I have met on many occasions. He is very hard-working—many farmers across the country are, but this gentleman works very hard indeed. It is wrong that he should have to think of these things, take all those measures and spend all that money.
The Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations that require all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes to be fitted with immobilisers and forensic markings, and owners’ details to be registered on a database. On the first issue, the National Farmers Union has highlighted that shipping delays and the effects of the covid pandemic and Brexit are contributing to a rise in demand for both new and second-hand farm machinery. NFU members have reported that the lack of availability of ATVs has resulted in it taking three to six months to replace a stolen vehicle and that the cost has risen dramatically.
As waiting lists grow and market values soar, thieves are seeing quads and ATVs as expensive, easily portable, hot-ticket items with a ready resale market in this country and abroad. Thefts are therefore hitting farmers twice as hard because of the difficulties in getting replacement vehicles. The financial impact of these incidents is exacerbated further at a time when energy and feed costs are soaring. Requiring that new machinery be fitted with a prominent and visible engine immobiliser should provide a deterrent effect by making it harder to steal, thereby decreasing its attractiveness to thieves.
The second part of the Bill requires that owners’ details be registered on a database. That will make it easier for police to investigate thefts and return stolen goods to their owners. It will also make it easier for legitimate owners to demonstrate their title, in case that is required during an investigation into a suspected theft. That is a positive step and of immense importance to small businesses in Loughborough and beyond.
Last October, Tradespeople Against Tool Theft published a white paper exploring the realities of UK tradespeople who have had their tools stolen. The paper found  that 78% of tradespeople surveyed have had their tools stolen, and that 38.5% have had them stolen from their van outside their home. Only 1% of tradespeople fully recovered their stolen tools. Some trades appear to be more desirable targets for thieves: 30% of carpenters have had their tools stolen four times or more.
A highly skilled plumber in my constituency has campaigned tirelessly on this issue at a national level with his campaign, #noVANber. A report of the campaign said:
“Based in Loughborough, independent plumber Peter Booth…launched a petition…aiming to get the issue of van theft taken more seriously. His #noVANber social media campaign calls on the Government to look at the increasing ways to protect tradespeople from van tool theft.”
A report by Powertools2U claimed that a van has its tools stolen every 23 minutes in the UK, with an average of 62 thefts per day. Mr Peter Booth added:
“I got tired of seeing photos and stories from tradespeople who had their vans targeted and tools stolen, stopping them from working. I didn’t think it was fair. I wanted to gather support using social media influence to try and get the Government to look at the possible ways to help make this crime less profitable for the culprits.”
The impact of equipment theft on victims can be wide-ranging, including the financial costs and the emotional and psychological impact. Financially, there is not only the cost of replacing the stolen equipment, but the potential loss of business due to the delays in sourcing new tools. The Federation of Master Builders found that over a builder’s career, they will typically lose £10,000-worth of tools and six working days to tool theft.
Alongside that, the FMB has reported that tool theft is causing 15% of builders to suffer from anxiety and 11% to suffer from depression. The chief executive of the FMB has said:
“Decisive action is needed to tackle tool theft. Eight in ten builders report that they have had tools stolen before. This is causing mental health issues amongst builders with reports of depression, anxiety, anger, frustration, stress and even suicidal thoughts.”
Peter Booth worked on his petition alongside my predecessor, the right hon. Nicky Morgan, now in the other place, and called on the Government to consider what more could be done to tackle van theft and tool theft. The petition was signed by 40, 262 people.
The Bill is a good framework, which will help farmers and small businesses. The farmers who feed our country and all tradespeople are the backbone of our economy and should be supported. I welcome the Bill and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on his work on this topic—a very good use of a birthday.

Gagan Mohindra: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), a constituency neighbour. I understand that today is his birthday. I have done a little research and he is older than he looks, so I congratulate him on his fitness regime.
First, I thank Sarah Varley from my office for helping me research this debate. I have spoken about my beautiful constituency before; it is very much a green-belt area but 65% of it is agricultural land and rural crime unfortunately remains a big issue and is regularly brought up in my surgeries and in discussions and correspondence with my constituents.
Tradespeople and farmers are the workforce of our great country and we should do all we can to continue to support them, especially through these difficult economic times. The impact of the increased cost of living is very  much felt by the frontline of our economy, which these individuals very much are. Some 89% of those in rural communities are concerned about inflation and the increase in the cost of living will, sadly, lead to an increase in rural crime.
Our farmers need our support. They have a very stressful job, working hard for extremely long hours, often with very few of the breaks and holidays that other sectors benefit from. Some 38% of respondents to a Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institute survey said rural crime is a source of stress to them; they should not have to accept that additional stress. Rural crime fell during the pandemic, yet it still cost the UK about £40 million in 2021. However, costs were over 40% higher in the same period last year. Rural crime is clearly regaining momentum.
In a recent NFU survey, 43% of respondents reported having fallen victim to at least one theft incident in the last year. Utility vehicles such as all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes are essential to farmers: they save a significant amount of labour, and are used for checking livestock, moving animals around the farm and other important farming tasks. Quad and ATV theft reported to NFU Mutual cost £2.2 million in 2021, and there has now, unfortunately, been an upward trend: almost half of quad and ATV thefts reported to NFU Mutual last year took place between September and December.
I had a surgery in Flaunden in my constituency last month, where Helen Savage discussed rural crime and fly-tipping, which was mentioned earlier. The Bill does not cover that, but it remains a big issue.
I am lucky to have an excellent police and crime commissioner, David Lloyd, and I will have a meeting with him later this month, when I intend to bring up these issues again. I also have regular conversations with the NFU through the roundtable, so I hear at first hand from the farming community.
Unfortunately, 78% of tradespeople report having had their tools stolen, yet only 1% have ever had them returned. Suspects are 25% more likely to be charged for crimes in urban areas than in the countryside. In 2021, suspects were charged in less than 7% of all recorded crime in rural areas. These figures send the wrong message, and I know the Minister will do all he can to ensure that we get the right message across.
In conclusion, I once again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham on this excellent piece of legislation. The additional support that it offers to tradespeople and farmers is warmly welcomed, as is the fact that it should be a deterrent for additional crime in the future. I wish the Bill a speedy passage in the other place and I look forward to it hopefully being warmly welcomed on both sides of the House and in the other place.

Stephen Kinnock: It is not every day that we get the chance to debate an issue that commands such a high degree of consensus among Members of the House. I am glad to say that the Opposition continue to support the passage of the Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), and we of course welcome the Government’s support for it. I congratulate  the hon. Member for Buckingham on getting the Bill  to this stage. A little bird tells me that it is apparently  his birthday today, so I add my congratulations on that as well.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this area—there are not many thefts of tractors or combine harvesters in my constituency. None the less, it is absolutely clear that the theft of vehicles and tools blights our rural communities. These are particularly pernicious crimes, because they attack the very basis on which farmers and tradespeople earn a living for themselves and their families. Although these are clearly long-standing problems, the need for action has perhaps become more pressing in these precarious economic times.
The Bill focuses primarily on the theft of vehicles, specifically all-terrain vehicles and quad bikes, which will be subject to new requirements for immobilisers and forensic markings to be fitted before they can be sold. Despite that relatively narrow focus, debates on Second Reading and in Committee reflected a widespread consensus among hon. Members that the scope of the changes should be expanded under the secondary legislation that the Bill enables.
In particular, tradespeople across the UK are facing serious problems as a result of tool theft, especially those who store their equipment in vans. According to data from surveys carried out by the Direct Line Group, more than half of roofers, electricians, plumbers and carpenters have been victims of such crimes. In Committee, the Minister said:
“my starting position is that if we are going to bring forward statutory instruments under the Bill to deal with ATVs, why not do the other tools at the same time?”––[Official Report, Equipment Theft (Prevention) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2023; c. 10.]
That sounds like a sensible position, so can the Minister provide some further detail on the progress of the work to address any technical challenges that such regulations might face? Can he tell the House when he expects the relevant secondary legislation to be introduced?
It would be remiss of me not to raise the issue of enforcement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) said on Second Reading:
“The Bill, if introduced, would be a formidable starting point, but there are no two ways about it: the underfunding and under-resourcing of our police forces have undermined their capabilities for more than a decade.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2022; Vol. 723, c. 1093.]
As is so often the case, the legislation will be only as effective as the level of prioritisation and resourcing for law enforcement and implementation is adequate. On that basis, I look forward to hearing from the Minister in more detail about how the Government will ensure that rates of detection and prosecution of such crimes will be improved.

Chris Philp: It is a great pleasure to speak on this important Third Reading debate. I begin by thanking hon. Members for joining us, particularly those who may have been elsewhere yesterday and perhaps, in some cases, may have had quite a late night.
I extend a particularly warm thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for taking the initiative and pursuing this private Member’s  Bill with such eloquence, tenacity and ability. I congratulate him on corralling cross-party support from the Government, fromOpposition Front Benchers and from hon. Members across the House, and I add my birthday felicitations to those that have been expressed. He has made a very good job of the Bill, which the Government have supported from the outset and which has received resounding support across the House on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Third Reading. It is a great example of Back Benchers, Government and law enforcement working together to protect hard-working people from various forms of theft.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), mentioned enforcement. A couple of days ago, I met Superintendent Huddleston, the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s rural crime co-ordinator, and David Exwood, vice-president of the National Farmers Union, to discuss the significant impact that the Bill will have on protecting farmers from the effects of such thefts on individuals and businesses. The theft of agricultural vehicles from a farmer can cause severe disruption to essential cultivation work, as well as risking animal welfare and putting livelihoods on the line.
We are almost at the end of our programme to recruit an extra 20,000 police officers. When the programme concludes in just a few weeks’ time, we will have more police officers across England and Wales than at any point in our country’s history. We will substantially exceed the previous peak under the last Labour Government and deliver record numbers of officers, including in rural areas, where they will be able to police laws such as the Bill. It is a Conservative Government who have delivered those record numbers.
As a result of the Bill, we expect a real decrease in the theft of all-terrain vehicles. The introduction of the extremely effective technology of immobilisers and forensic marking will certainly help to prevent and deter theft and, in the case of forensic marking, to enable detection. It will make it harder for criminals to sell on stolen machinery, which will have an important deterrent effect. We have heard about how the theft of agricultural machinery, particularly all-terrain vehicles, is of great concern, and we recognise the distress caused when such property is stolen.
As hon. Members including the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) have said, there is a strong desire on both sides of the House to ensure that the statutory instruments made under the Bill go beyond all-terrain vehicles to include larger agricultural equipment and the tools used by tradespeople. To answer the shadow Minister’s question, I can confirm that my intention is to make statutory instruments under the Bill that deal not just with ATVs, but with other agricultural machinery and with tradespeople’s high-value tools. We will need to consult to ensure that we get the details right, but I would like us to cover all such equipment.
This excellent Bill will confer that flexibility. It may initially have been conceived with ATVs in mind, but its scope is far wider. Clause 1(2) will provide a statutory basis for secondary legislation to cover not just ATVs, but
“mechanically propelled vehicles that…have an engine capacity of at least 250 cubic centimeters”
and are designed for off-road use, which includes a whole load of other agricultural machinery. Clause 1(2)(b) clearly covers
“other equipment designed or adapted primarily for use in agricultural or commercial activities”,
including for builders and tradespeople. It strikes me as sensible to use the powers in the Bill to address that equipment as well.

Jane Hunt: I thank the Minister very much for what he has just said. It is an amazing thing, and lots of small businesses out there will be very grateful for it.

Chris Philp: This is a good example of parliamentary scrutiny delivering improvements. Those issues were raised forcefully by my hon. Friend and others on Second Reading and in Committee. The Government can, should and will respond. We need proper consultations with industry groups and others to ensure that we get the details right, but it strikes me as an important thing to do, as Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. Without question, it will benefit the entire economy by reducing theft—I am happy to make that clear once again on Third Reading.
Those consultations are very important. We need to get the details right, as I have said. We will work with industry groups, the police-led national business crime centre and the combined industries theft solutions group to help us understand the details. We are grateful for the expertise that those bodies bring to bear in this area.
I would like to conclude—often the most popular line in my speeches—by putting on record my thanks to the National Farmers Union and the National Police Chiefs Council lead for construction and agricultural machinery theft, Superintendent Andy Huddleston, who I met just a few days ago, for their work developing the measures in the Bill. Most of all, I thank the birthday boy, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, for the initiative he has shown in introducing the Bill.

Greg Smith: With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, not least their kind words in wishing me a happy birthday. I recommend to all right hon. and hon. Members a sitting Friday as the perfect definition of what a good birthday looks like. In particular, I thank my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), who has supported this Bill throughout. He pointed out that the demand right now is outstripping supply, which is giving a far greater urgency to the need for the provisions of the Bill.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), who like me is a fan of “Clarkson’s Farm,” which has done more to bring the British public closer to the realities of British farming than “Countryfile” has managed in decades. He pointed out that GPS units are a particularly targeted item of equipment at the moment, particularly as farms have moved to a reliance on GPS units for spraying, drilling and bringing the harvest in with the combine. The loss of that equipment has a massive impact on yields and on the ability to feed the nation.
The hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) made a very valid point about hill farmers’ reliance on quad bikes and ATVs. I do not have many hill farms in my constituency, but in many parts of the country that  is incredibly important. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) referenced the Pig & Abbot pub rural crime survey. He highlighted that all 30 of the farmers he spoke to had been a victim of rural crime, underlying the necessity for the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) pointed out that we need to ensure that rural crime is a priority for the additional police officers that the Government are recruiting.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for her support and for being one of the voices to push for the extension of the Bill into many other sectors, including tool theft. I have to give special thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for supporting me in the original iteration of this Bill as a ten-minute rule Bill a couple of years ago, all the way through Second Reading and in Committee, and now on Third Reading. I am very grateful for her support and her voice, as acknowledged by my right hon. Friend the Minister a few moments ago, to ensure that we got the Bill beyond just quad bikes and ATVs, to protect all our trades up and down the land from tool theft.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), another constituency neighbour, made a very valid point on the stress that equipment theft brings to farmers and tradespeople. When that equipment is gone, people cannot do their jobs and earn their living. Their livelihoods are brought under question, particularly in agriculture, because when the crops need to come in, they have to come in. If people have lost that equipment, it has a huge impact on food production and on animal welfare; the equipment is vital to ensuring that our farmers are able to deliver.
I am grateful once again to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). He may not have many combine or tractor thefts in his constituency, but I assure him that when a combine or other agricultural machinery is stolen, it has an impact on us all, because it affects the food production that farmers up and down the land are able to deliver. We will all go hungry if farmers are not able to do the work they want to do. I offer my sincere thanks and gratitude to the Opposition for supporting the Bill and enabling its smooth passage thus far.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has been a great support throughout the process. I have been grateful for our conversations outside the Chamber as well as those inside it and in Committee. I am grateful for the Government’s support and particularly grateful for his comments this afternoon that the Bill can go further and that the provisions in the Bill to enable him and the Home Secretary to bring in secondary legislation to expand its scope will make a huge difference in defending our farms, our tradespeople and everybody who depends on such equipment to go about their day-to-day lives. I am confident that the Bill will make a huge difference and I am grateful to the Minister for his enthusiasm and support in making it happen.
Finally, an enormous number of people have contributed to getting the Bill to where it is now. I once more place on record my thanks and gratitude to Superintendent Andy Huddleston and to Inspector Hutchings of the Thames Valley Police rural crime taskforce. I thank Anna Dawson and the whole office team at the Home Office for the support they have given throughout the process, from sitting with me in one of the first roundtables with manufacturers, at Yamaha in Reading, to getting the Bill to this point. I thank the NFU vice president David Exwood and the whole team at the National Farmers Union and NFU Mutual for their support.
I also put on record my thanks for the expert advice and efficiency of the Public Bill Office, particularly Anne-Marie Griffiths, who has supported me so ably in getting all the details and the right procedures in place for this Bill. I thank my senior parliamentary assistant, Ian Kelly, who has done an enormous amount of heavy lifting to support me in getting us to where we are today.
Finally, as hopefully the Bill leaves this House and goes to the other place, I thank my noble friend, Lord Blencathra. When he was a Member of this House, he specialised in talking out private Members’ Bills, but I am delighted that he has agreed to pilot this one through the House of Lords. I am very confident that he will do so with great skill and ability and ensure that this Bill, which can do so much for rural Britain, for our farmers and for our tradespeople, whichever trade they are in, can make a huge and lasting difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Bill, not amended in the Public Bill Committee, considered.
Third Reading

Simon Fell: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Welcome to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset I want to thank all those who have contributed to the debates and in Committee. I can report that we have received broad support from colleagues across the House, from those on the Government Benches, from the SNP and the Liberal Democrats—although that is not apparent right now—and from our colleagues on the Opposition Benches. I hope that approach will continue throughout the debate today and, if we are successful, that it does so when the Bill goes to the Lords.
Being released from prison on a Friday presents a unique challenge for offenders who want to change their lives and turn their back on crime. Friday releases can be fraught with practical challenges that derail that goal. This Bill seeks to change that. Approximately a third of all releases currently fall on a Friday and, like on any other weekday, many of those released will need to access essential support services such as local authority housing, substance misuse support or even mental health services. However, on a Friday there is a unique race against the clock to get to these services before they close for the day. Many of them close early on a Friday and are shut for the weekend. Many people are released not that close to home, so they have to navigate their way to the services within a very narrow window of opportunity, with one eye on the clock, knowing that the cliff edge of the weekend is present. That is a daunting challenge.
If the House will indulge me, I will give an example of why this matters. David Dunn is the director of a charity called Release Mates, which is a group of prison leavers in long-term recovery from addiction who recognise the need for support for men and women in the immediate hours following their release from custody. David wrote to me:
“Release Mates is waiting at the prison gate for a prison leaver, ensuring they have food and clothes, taking them for a breakfast, accompanying them to the mandatory day of release probation appointment, then to the job centre to ensure he/she has funds to survive. Often, we then accompany the prison leaver to their local police station where they are required to report as part of a court order, and wherever possible we try to link prison leavers in with drug and alcohol services and/or mental health support. Our work with female prisoners…is often more complex as we are sometimes required to attend children’s services appointments on the day of release.
Our experience is that the job we do with prison leavers is significantly more difficult on a Friday. We are often required to find emergency accommodation for prison leavers, which on other days of the week is difficult but on Fridays is almost impossible. The weekend closure of drug and alcohol services regularly sees addicted prison leavers on opiate substitute medication without a prescription after a Friday release, inevitably leading to a relapse to Class A drugs. Without wishing to be critical of the probation service, they can offer very little help after noon on a Friday. Sometimes we are simply unable to complete all the appointments which a prison leaver is required to attend in one day. If that day is a Friday, a vulnerable person is often left to fend for themselves for 3 days before receiving help. I do not like to think of the chances a prison leaver being released on a Friday has without the kind of support which we offer.”
It is David’s final point that the Bill seeks to answer. Failure to access vital support can increase an offender’s likelihood of reoffending. We know that the reoffending rate for adults released on a Friday is higher than for any other day of the week, and that those without stable accommodation on release are almost 50% more likely to reoffend.
By removing the barriers that a Friday release can bring, we can ensure that prison leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community so that victims and the public are protected. The law currently mandates that offenders due to be released on a Saturday or a Sunday, or on a bank or public holiday, must be released on the preceding day, provided it is a working day. Although this avoids releases on days when services are completely closed, the result is a bunching of releases on Fridays, with almost double the number of any other day of the week.
This Bill will amend the law to provide the Secretary of State for Justice with a discretionary power to bring forward an offender’s release date by up to two eligible working days where their release falls on a Friday, or to the day before a public or bank holiday. In practical terms, the power will be given to a prison governor, director or appropriate equivalent official in the youth establishment to apply the policy to bring forward an individual’s release date.
Evidence suggests that a Friday release has a disproport-ionate impact on those with complex needs, those who may have greater distances to travel once they are released and those with substance misuse or mental health needs. Such a power will promote a law-abiding reintegration into society by ensuring that those leaving custody can access the support services they need on release.

Greg Smith: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I entirely agree with him on the necessity of this Bill. Seeing the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), in his place reminds me of many moons ago, when I chaired the crime and disorder reduction partnership in Hammersmith and Fulham where, on a weekly basis, we saw the problem of prisoners released from all over the country, but particularly from Wormwood Scrubs, not being able to access housing and finding themselves in a very difficult place.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on introducing the Bill. Does he agree that housing is key to ensuring that those leaving prison are able to go straight back into a good pattern, as opposed to potentially falling back into whichever crime got them into prison in the first place?

Simon Fell: My hon. Friend is right: accommodation is key. I know from speaking to my right hon. Friend the Minister that it is part of the puzzle that the Ministry of Justice is trying to bear down on. Ending Friday releases for vulnerable people is part of the challenge that we face, but stable accommodation, with the ability to gain access to bank accounts and mobile phones in order to register for services such as universal credit, is essential to helping people as they are released.
Like adults, children are more likely to be released on a Friday than on any other day. In addition to their inherent vulnerability as children, under-18s leaving  custody have multiple and often complex needs, and a Friday release may mean going for two or even three days without meaningful contact with support services when they are at their most vulnerable. That is why the Bill applies to both adults and children sentenced to detention, and ensures that the same provisions exist across the youth estate.
Evidence shows that those who have the basics that they need on resettlement are far less likely to reoffend. The House has an opportunity to give offenders vital extra time in which to meet their probation officer or youth justice worker and gain access to support services such as healthcare ahead of the weekend, will which help to cut crime and ultimately make our streets safer. The fact is that many people released from prison, especially on Fridays, are almost set up to fail from the moment they step off the prison estate. If we support people as they come out of prison, we can play a key role in reducing the significant societal and individual costs of reoffending, leading to fewer victims of crime and fewer communities dealing with its impact.
The Bill is an important step towards doing that, and I sincerely hope the House will agree that by making the simple change that it proposes—varying the date of release for vulnerable people by up to 48 hours—we can relieve the time pressure, take away the cliff edge, and give people the best opportunity to make a fresh start. If we are serious about justice, if we are serious about helping people to rebuild stable and rewarding lives, and if we are interested in relieving prison capacity to improve outcomes and in reducing reoffending, passing the Bill is an important step in the right direction.
Sometimes it seems as if we in this place speak a different language from the one spoken in the world outside—a language that seems very different to the people we represent—but the Bill has reminded me  that that is not the case. After Second Reading, my office in Barrow received a phone call from a serving prisoner, Gary, who had watched the proceedings on parliamentlive.tv. He had done better than many of the staff in my office! He is due for release on a Friday in August preceding a bank holiday weekend. Understandably, he is concerned about exactly the issue that the Bill seeks to address: being stranded without support or the ability to help himself for three days. It is no exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of Garys out there, all with the same concern, all wanting a fair chance to stand on their own two feet and to start a new life on release. I hope that by passing the Bill we will give them that chance: it is the very least that we can do.
I also hope that I have addressed, as fully as possible, the aims of the Bill and the positive impact that it will have, and I am proud to present it to the House for its Third Reading. In many respects it offers just a small change, but it is a change that will have a great and lasting impact for many people on leaving custody. I firmly believe that this is the right thing for us to do, and I hope that the House will join me in supporting it.

Rob Butler: I support the Bill wholeheartedly. I congratulate both my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on introducing  it before he entered the Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on guiding it through the legislative process so thoroughly and well.
As many Members will know, I have a strong and passionate interest in reducing the number of victims of crime by improving the rehabilitation of offenders, having been a non-executive director of HM Prison and Probation Service and, for a very short time, the Minister responsible for prisons and probation. I was released very early; I am not sure that it was for entirely good behaviour. [Laughter.] I am very pleased that my successor has embraced the Bill and is doing such a fantastic job across the whole portfolio.
Prisons play an important part in the process of rehabilitation, with a wide range of classes, training courses and programmes that are designed to help people acquire the skills and habits they need to live a life free of crime once they are released. I praise the fantastic work that is done by teachers, tutors and coaches in our prisons. The job is not easy, but it can be extremely rewarding, and I am pleased that the Government are investing much more in prison education services and recruiting more staff to these vital positions.
However good the rehabilitation efforts are when somebody is in custody, one of the riskiest moments for reoffending is immediately after a prisoner is released. The order and structure of the prison environment suddenly disappear, and instead there is the potential for anxiety, confusion and temptation. This is the time when it is essential to get support in place to ensure that there is somewhere to live, something constructive to do and someone to go to for help and advice. What matters most when someone is released from jail is for them to be able to go immediately to a probation office, to sign up with a doctor, to go to their new accommodation and perhaps to visit the jobcentre. Those immediate first positive steps can make all the difference between going straight and going swiftly back behind bars.
Unfortunately, those crucial and relatively simple steps are impossible when someone is released on a Friday afternoon, has to travel for several hours to get home and then finds that all the services they need have closed for the weekend. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, the impact can be particularly severe for women, because they are frequently imprisoned even further from home than men are. It is a race against time that is rarely won by the person who has been newly freed from prison.
With a third of all releases taking place on a Friday, a significant number of people are at risk. This matters, because 80% of crime is committed by reoffenders, and reoffending overall costs the taxpayer £18 billion a year. If we in this place truly want to support people as they come out of prison and reduce that cost, we can play a role in doing so today by making the simple change of ending Friday releases, which will relieve the time pressure to access services, helping to ensure that newly released prisoners can have a fresh start.
While I accept that this is not a magic bullet to end reoffending, it will go some way to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, and it boils down to a simple administrative change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness outlined admirably. The move is supported by  charities, the voluntary sector, those working within the prison system, the probation service and ex-offenders themselves.
I draw particular attention to the work done by the charity Nacro, which has long campaigned for this change. Its 2021 report entitled “Friday Prison Releases: Collective Voices” says that
“Friday prison releases are needlessly setting people up to fail”.
It is hard to disagree. The report quotes a prison leaver as saying:
“I had to sleep at a fishing pit until the Monday because that was the next day the person [at the council] was back in her seat at work.”
There are other quotes in Nacro’s report that are worth highlighting, including from a prison:
“We have lots of issues with Friday releases, which are particularly problematic for people with substance misuse support needs”;
from the police:
“The police often have to pick up the pieces where people fall through the gaps, and this happens more often when people are released from prison on a Friday”;
from a council accommodation officer:
“People who leave prison on a Friday do not get the early intervention… which is unfair and is more likely to lead to further offending”;
and from the charity itself:
“I would say that most people who are released from prison on a Friday and need to report to the council for housing end up being homeless as they didn’t have the time”.
Nacro’s chief executive has said that ending Friday releases
“will give people the best chance at a second chance”.
I completely agree.
At a time of challenging public finances, this is a policy that will cost the taxpayer virtually nothing—perhaps just a bit of administration to update working practices and procedures. I am delighted that the Minister has confirmed on multiple occasions that the Government support this important Bill. I congratulate everybody who has been involved in getting it to this stage, including the officials from the Ministry of Justice, some of whom I recognise well, and especially my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness.

Jane Hunt: Today is an excellent day for this Chamber and the House of Commons, because we have some fantastic Bills coming through, and none more so than this one. I am delighted to speak in favour of the Bill.
The estimated economic and social cost of reoffending to this country is £18.1 billion a year. Researchers found that those who have chaotic experiences in the community before or after custody, such as insecure accommodation, employment needs or substance misuse, are more likely to reoffend. In 2018-19, approximately 40% of adult prisoners were released to unsettled accommodation, rough sleeping or homelessness, or their accommodation status was unknown on the first night of release. Around 42% of prisoners have either an alcohol or a drugs need, or both. The prisons strategy White Paper has set out a number of ways to improve the situation, including education services, dealing with dependency on drugs  and help to get people into work following release, all of which are excellent ideas. They all cost money, though, and that money could be wasted if an ex-offender is leaving prison on a Friday with a few pounds in their pocket and potentially nowhere to go, with no agencies open to offer support over the weekend.
As a councillor on Charnwood Borough Council— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am still a councillor—I was lucky enough to chair a series of panels on reducing reoffending. I met not only ex-offenders, police and housing support officers, but local charities that work to support ex-offenders, which Loughborough simply could not do without. Charities such as Exaireo, Carpenters Arms, The Bridge and Futures Unlocked all offer outstanding service to ex-offenders and others from across the country, helping them to turn their life around. I have seen the work of those charities, which is exemplary, and I continue to support them in all they do.
As part of the panel’s work, we took evidence and made a series of recommendations. There are six pages of recommendations; I promise not to refer to all six pages right now, but I will refer to one, which states that
“the Panel makes representations to the local MPs, in respect of the day of the week prisoners are released from prison and highlighting the issues surrounding Friday release”.
The reason for that recommendation was that,
“Support for offenders was not readily available on a Friday or over the weekend. Therefore, a release earlier in the week provides officers with greater opportunities to divert offenders away from previous habits and friends towards services to provide support in respect of housing, benefits and health related issues.”
That work was done in 2011, so it has taken us some time, but I believe we are achieving such a great goal today.
If Members will indulge me for a moment, the BBC has today published an article on its website by Helen Catt, entitled “My Friday prison release led to a disastrous mistake”. I will read a passage, if I may:
“Prisoners vulnerable to addiction, mental health issues or homelessness will no longer be released on Fridays under new plans to cut reoffending. One prisoner who breached parole after being released on a Friday says he felt let down by the system. He told the BBC his story and what it says about prisoners at risk of lapsing back into a life of crime.
‘By the time I got to the housing department, it was a Friday afternoon and there was no-one there to see me. I knew the offices wouldn’t be open again until the Monday. I was quite fearful of where I was going to stay that night—I didn’t want to stay on the streets.’
Marc Conway was 17 years old when he was released, on a Friday, after three months in HMP Feltham young offenders’ institution in London. Without anywhere to go, he made what he describes as a ‘disastrous mistake’ and stayed with a ‘known associate’. In doing so, he broke his licence conditions and was recalled to prison to serve out the remaining three months of his sentence. ‘I felt like I had let people down, first and foremost, that I’d been recalled back to prison so soon,’ he said. ‘I was angry, I was resentful of the system. I felt the system had let me down again and I dread to think what I would have done that night if  I didn’t have somewhere to stay.’
Marc has served a number of sentences for a range of serious offences, last leaving prison four-and-a-half years ago.”
However, in 2019 he was one of the people who pinned down the convicted terrorist on London bridge, after that person had fatally stabbed two people. That is a person we want in society; that is a person I believe we should help. Hopefully, by not releasing people on a  Friday, we will be able to assist them much earlier on in the process after their initial crime, rather than having them spending four and half years in prison, as Mark did.
In conclusion, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who originally introduced the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), who has taken up  the challenge. With one small Bill, they are going to make a huge difference to people’s lives. I thank them for doing so.

James Wild: I join in congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), and all those involved in bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I look forward to it completing its passage today.
I am pleased to support the Bill, and the Government’s work in tackling reoffending rates, which have decreased over the last decade. The kernel of the Bill is to avoid the release of an offender on a Friday or the day preceding a bank holiday, by bringing their release date forward by one or two working days. Currently, the Criminal Justice Act 1961 provides that offenders who would otherwise be released on weekends, bank holidays or public holidays, are to be released the preceding day. That is meant to ensure that offenders can access services and accommodation on their day of release. As we have heard with stark examples, in reality, getting that timely support on a Friday is simply not practical due to early closing hours and the number of prisoners who are released.
The status quo is clearly self-defeating, as failure to access services can increase the risk of reoffending, which is something that we all want to reduce. We have heard about the importance of access to accommodation, which, in turn, is vital in helping people to access employment and training to support their rehabilitation. I am pleased that the Bill delivers on a key Government commitment in the prisons White Paper from 2021. The White Paper also set out how the Government want to rehabilitate criminals and reduce offending through work and training.
In particular, I support the partnerships that the Government are requiring prisons to have with businesses, to help train people and offer jobs on release. Prisons in the east of England have partnered with well-known businesses, such as Lotus and Bernard Matthews, as well as the manufacturing and construction sectors, to do precisely that. We know how important that is; offenders who get a job after coming out of prison are less likely to reoffend, but only 17% manage to get a job within a year of release. We need to put a lot more effort into increasing that number. I also welcome the Government’s progress on subsistence payments. In 2021, following a 26-year freeze, the Government increased the amount that is given to people on release for immediate essentials; that was increased in line with inflation last year, although it is still only £82.39.
We should recognise that the Bill involves people being released earlier than they would otherwise  from their prison sentences. Our constituents are rightly  concerned to see people serve the sentence they have been given, which is why I was pleased to support Government legislation to ensure that people serving the longest for the most serious offences serve more of their sentence. Clearly, on balance, there is a clear benefit to our constituents in releasing people a day or two earlier, although we need to have robust policy guidance and eligibility criteria to ensure public protection. I warmly welcome the Bill and look forward to it completing its passage.

Bob Blackman: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for bringing the Bill to the House. As far as I am concerned, people who end up in prison have gone through our process, they have been rightly convicted of offences, and they will serve their time. It is vital we give them the opportunity to rebuild their lives when they have served their sentence and come out.
When I brought forward the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, one of the areas I insisted on was ensuring that ex-offenders leaving prison were encouraged to rebuild their lives, that prison governors had a statutory duty to ensure they did so, and that they were referred to local housing authorities to be offered suitable accommodation. It is fair to say that I have harassed a number of Ministry of Justice Ministers over the past six years to ensure that prison governors carry out their statutory duties, so it is a great shame that is not happening as it should.
As has been said, one in three prisoners are released on a Friday at present. Housing authorities close their doors at 5 o’clock and unless the ex-offender is there in time, they are likely to have a choice of either sleeping rough or, worse still, returning to the area in which their crimes were originally committed and then mixing and mingling with the same people who got them into trouble in the first place. They are often left with £50 in their pocket and told, “Go away and don’t reoffend.” That is unacceptable today, particularly for people who have committed to rebuilding their lives and end up literally on the streets.
The support services people need are not there. I declare my interest as the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness. We have a clear indication and evidence from local authorities that there is no support over the weekends for prison leavers to obtain accommodation. They approach the housing authority and find it closed or unable to provide accommodation on an emergency basis, so that leaves them on the streets or with the alternative I have mentioned.
As has been said, other services are needed. GPs, jobcentres and advice centres all close at the end of Friday and do not open again until Monday. That leaves people in a desperate position that they should not have to face. They have frequently lost contact with their friends and family because of the fact they have been in imprisoned, and they literally have nowhere to go over the weekend. For many, the stability of prison, despite the conditions, and a roof and food is potentially better than being on the streets, because then they face a choice. Do they spend their money on a hotel room? Do  they reoffend? What do they do? That is the key challenge. We have to prevent people from getting to that unacceptable position.
Given the weather, people will be being released today in freezing conditions and then facing that desperate choice. They have no stable living place to end up in, so the temptation to return to a life of crime is always there, and they may have people who will support them to return to that life of crime, rather than supporting them to rebuild their lives. It is clearly not in the interests of anyone that people are placed in that position.
This is a very simple Bill, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for bringing it forward. We should be releasing prisoners during the week, allowing them to access services and to rebuild their lives. We do not want to see people returning to prison. We do not want people to reoffend; we want them to be good citizens. If we do send them back to prison, we should remember that it costs, on average, £43,000 to host a prisoner each year. In the public purse’s interests, this Bill is a sensible move.
In conclusion, I strongly support the Bill. It can lead to fewer crimes, fewer reoffending individuals and safer streets for us all, and that has to be in the interests of every single one of our constituents. What opposition could there be to such a Bill? It is good news, of course, that the Bill is welcomed on all sides. Finally, I would just say that prison governors and the people in the prison support service need to be thinking about how we support people to rebuild their lives, and to plan for it as they are coming up to their release dates, rather than it coming up as a sudden rush with people literally being put on the streets and told, “Go away and don’t reoffend.” That cannot be acceptable in today’s society. The Bill has to be in the interests of us all, and I commend it to the House.

Jonathan Gullis: I am aware through my office that I have gone viral on Twitter for the fact that, unfortunately, we have criminals who blight the great constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I referred to the scumbags who fly-tip, the scrotes who deal drugs and the savages who create their antisocial behaviour. I am not apologetic for calling out this wrong behaviour and for launching a safer streets petition for Tunstall, Cobridge and Smallthorne to get additional CCTV, new alley gates and better street lighting to help make our streets safer.
Despite some of the glares that my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been giving me throughout this debate to ensure that I stay on message, and the pressure that I can feel from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell), I am proud to stand up and say that I am in full support of the Bill in front of us today, because, despite my rough exterior at times, I am a pragmatist at heart. Ultimately, the overriding evidence is clear that something is not working and that that is undermining the very thing that we want to achieve, which is reducing reoffending, helping people to restart their lives and bringing crime down in our local communities. The Bill is a very simple, very basic mechanism that provides some help with that process. I would find it bizarre if anybody had any opposition to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for  Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who initiated the Bill, is certainly no wet; in fact he is very dry. Even though his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness, is a little damp, he is obviously very sound on these issues, so it is absolutely correct that we stand up and support him.
It seems very wrong to me that someone is not able to access any support services within a matter of hours of leaving prison, which could be hundreds of miles away from where they call home and from their support network of family and friends, who are good and trusted people who could guide them on the right path. It is completely abhorrent that someone should be left in such a vulnerable state. We are talking about people who will be suffering from drug and alcohol addiction. Their crime will have fed into those habits. Ultimately, these are people who need the right support and guidance, which links in with the fantastic legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is right, as he said earlier, that prison governors should use the discretion that they will be given to plan someone’s release, to plan support and to engage with the Probation Service much earlier in order to ensure that the said individual will be able to leave for a caring and nurturing environment.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, if we can achieve even a small reduction in reoffending, it will mean a lot less crime on our streets and a lot less police time being wasted on, in some cases, small and minor crimes. The police have major matters to deal with, such as those involving county lines gangs—those at the top end who are making the real money—and grooming gangs, who are difficult to catch, requiring hundreds of police to work thousands of hours to find out who is operating in our areas. There is also organised criminal activity such as theft and burglaries, white collar crime and online scams. All those things take an awful lot of police expertise and it is absolutely right, therefore, that we try to find a way to help people who have come out of prison. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said earlier, it is perfectly reasonable, and common sense at its best, to release someone a day or two earlier than scheduled—we are not talking about weeks or months—so that we avoid the things that we have been talking about. I would like to believe, Mr Deputy Speaker, that common sense always prevails in this place, although my mother says that I lack that at the best of times.
Overall, this is a strong piece of legislation. I am glad that it has cross-party support. I hope that it will go through speedily and unamended in the other place: the quicker that we can get this on the statute books, the quicker that we can act.
I thought that the article that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) read out was incredibly powerful. I am not known for openly praising the BBC, but, still, let me give credit where credit is  due. That story was of a 17-year-old boy—he is a boy at 17 years old—who was clearly vulnerable, who clearly felt alone, and who had no support network. He had fallen in with the nearest person he could find, but, sadly, that person was someone who should have been avoided. Therefore, through no fault of his own, that young man ended up back in prison for three months.
Let us not forget that it costs an awful lot of taxpayers’ money to look after an individual sitting in a prison cell day in, day out, when they could be out contributing to society and getting the education they deserve or a job with a salary that pays back into the system, giving them the self-confidence, self-worth and self-belief that they can go on to achieve many great things. It is frightfully important for us to remember that. The article made it plain and clear that this is a good Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness and I wish him all success in getting it passed.

Andrew Slaughter: I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) on getting the Bill this far.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) expressed Labour’s support for the Bill. That support remains. In fact, the Opposition support it so much that we tried to bring the legislation in first with an amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. Given the cross-party support and the common-sense thinking behind the legislation, it was a surprise that the Government did not support Labour’s amendment on that occasion, and nor have they sought to bring forward similar legislation themselves. However, it seems—[Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position. It seems that they are now on board, so we can all be grateful for that.
As I said, we think this is a sensible Bill, one that we hope will have a positive effect on reoffending rates, along with reducing the numbers of recently released prisoners who become homeless. Only 45% of people released from prison in 2021-22 had settled accommodation on their release. That means over half were released from prison with nowhere to go and had to use their first hours of freedom desperately searching for a safe and suitable place to sleep. Sadly, 11% of those people ended up homeless or sleeping rough. Studies have shown that safe and secure housing is key to stopping the cycle of reoffending. His Majesty’s inspectorate of probation found that
“the proportion of service users recalled or resentenced to custody within 12 months of release was almost double for those without settled accommodation.”
It is a stark contrast that a person who, until their day of release, had their housing, meals and medicine provided under one roof, is then left on a Friday afternoon with only the number of a probation officer and the address of a pharmacist. Many recently released prisoners then have a race against time to find a roof over their head, to apply for benefits to pay for food, housing and other necessities, and to visit their GP or pharmacist if they are part of a drug treatment programme. If a prisoner has willingly and successfully engaged in a drug treatment programme, then not ensuring enough time to get to a pharmacist upon release is tantamount to derailing that treatment programme.
When a prisoner is released it should be seen as a new start, where opportunities are presented and support is readily available, but all too often the opposite is true. We hope the Bill can go some way to rectifying that, but  it is only a part of the picture. The rehabilitation of offenders starts within prisons, with better conditions, better education and training, support for mental health, help to repair broken family relationships, and more drug treatment programmes. If the Government are really serious about cutting reoffending, they could look at reducing the use of shorter sentences for non-violent offences. Research tells us that short sentences do not work, with 63% of those who serve a sentence of 12 months or less going on to reoffend within a year. One answer to that lies in effective community sentencing for those who commit non-violent offences. That would help to ease overcrowding and allow prisons to get their education programmes back up and running.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I feel I am digressing on to wider issues. Let me conclude by saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We think it is the right and sensible thing to do. We just add that it would be a missed opportunity for it to be thought the only thing that needs to be done to help cut reoffending.

Damian Hinds: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) for his excellent work bringing this important Bill to the House and navigating it through to this stage. It is a great credit to him that there is such support for this legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) has played an important role in this Bill to date. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Aylesbury (Rob Butler), for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who spoke passionately about their local communities and the great work carried out by the voluntary and charitable sector, and with particular insight as local representatives. I also thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), who speaks for the Opposition, for the manner and content of his remarks in welcoming the Bill. It is a good and positive thing when we have legislation coming forward with wide support from different parties in the House and different perspectives and traditions to do something sensible in the interests of our society.
As the House has heard, the Bill ensures that offenders who have resettlement needs will no longer need to be released on a Friday or the day before a bank or public holiday. It will do that by enabling a release date to be brought forward by up to two eligible working days, so these offenders will be released earlier in the week. In practice, this means that offenders with resettlement needs will no longer face that race against the clock, which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness set out, to find accommodation, access medication and access finance support all before services close for the weekend. As he outlined, that is particularly challenging for people with more complex needs, of whom there are many, such as drug dependency or mental health illness, and, crucially, for those with a long distance to travel before they can access those services. The Bill will achieve that by tackling the practical challenges that Friday releases can create. It will address the issues that can lead to an increased risk of reoffending by ensuring that custody leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community and to turn their back on a life of crime.
As my hon. Friend said, the Bill also applies to children sentenced to detention. It will ensure that the release provisions relating to Friday, bank and public holiday, and weekend releases exist in respect of all youth settings, including the recently created secure 16 to 19 school. Despite the various safeguards and legal duties that exist for children leaving custody, being released on a Friday still means that a child would go for at least two days with no meaningful contact with their youth justice worker exactly when they are at their most vulnerable.

Rob Butler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the impact on young people and children is accentuated by the tremendous success there has been in reducing the number of children in custody from around 3,000 in 2007 to around 400 today? That means there are fewer secure settings for children, so they are frequently further from home and it takes them much longer on the day they are released to get to where they need to be.

Damian Hinds: My hon. Friend is spot on and speaks from great personal experience and expertise. It is true that far fewer children are being locked up than in 2010. We know that being incarcerated at a young age means people risk becoming more criminal and it exposes them to a whole range of different risks. Of course, sometimes that is exactly what we have to do—we must be able to imprison people where necessary—but where it is possible to avoid it, that is often better for the individual and for wider society. An effect of that, and this exists for women prisoners as well, is that a person is much more likely to be far away from home. Because there are fewer of these institutions, they are more spread out, so access to services, which my hon. Friend identifies is an issue, can be particularly acute for younger people.
In practice, it will be for heads of establishments to apply the power in bringing forward an offender’s release data. Aided by policy guidance, they can allow an offender additional time to resettle where it will support their reintegration into the community and reduce their risk of reoffending. As the House will be aware, the Government have made significant progress in tackling the £18 billion annual cost of reoffending and protecting the public.
Data show that the overall proven reoffending rate for adults decreased from 30.9% in 2009-10 to 25.6% in 2019-20, which is truly significant. The rate is still too high, however, and we have to do all we can to bring it down further. We are investing substantial sums to achieve that, including in prison leavers’ access to accommodation, about which several hon. Members on both sides of the House have spoken; and in building stronger links with employers through dedicated prison employment leads and prison employment advisory boards where business leaders can interface with their local prisons.
We have also seen encouraging improvements in employment rates for prisoners on release, which is an area where hon. Members can play an important role through their discussions with local employers by putting them in touch with this opportunity. We are also investing in offering more prisoners the chance to work while inside prison; developing the prison education service to raise the skills of offenders, about which my hon.  Friend the Member for Aylesbury also spoke; and increasing access to drugs rehabilitation through the recruitment of health and justice partnership co-ordinators to better link up services for offenders inside and beyond the prison perimeter. The hon. Member for Hammersmith was exactly right to identify that we need to think of it as a holistic process that starts inside and continues outside; it must be as linked up as possible.
We are also making large investments into youth justice to tackle offending by children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough said, there is a lot that the Government and the Prison Service can do, but charities and voluntary organisations, including the four that she mentioned in her constituency, are an absolutely irreplaceable and fundamental part of that fabric.
Those interventions should improve resettlement opportunities for all offenders and help to reduce reoffending, but they cannot fully address all the practicalities that are presented by being released on a Friday. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East vividly illustrated that journey to the House. This common-sense Bill will help to achieve that. I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness for bringing this important Bill before the House and I confirm again, with great pleasure, that the Government support it. I wish it all the best in its progress through the other place.

Simon Fell: With the leave of the House, I am incredibly grateful to friends—hon. Members on both sides of the House—for their support and valued contributions on the issue. Many have contributed on Second Reading, in Committee and on Third Reading, so I thank them all for the insight and passion that they brought to the debates. As constituency MPs, we all know people who have been affected by the issue, as has come out time and again.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), who passed responsibility for the Bill to me on his elevation to the Whips Office. He also kindly led the Committee stage ably and with real insight. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) has been a supporter of the cause in and out of office and I am grateful for his presence today—his passion for the subject is clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) is similarly passionate and experienced on the issue. In fact, she may be the only MP—this may be a parliamentary first—to have lobbied to be on a Bill Committee. I am incredibly grateful for that. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a thoughtful speech about the importance of giving people on release access to employment. His point was well made and, I hope, well heard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) spoke powerfully about the challenges offenders face on release and the injustice of people being given the opportunity to stand on their own two feet again but not being able to take that opportunity because structural barriers are in their way. I think one of the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), who I look down on from here, is so dry is the amount of hot air that emanates  from him. [Laughter.] However, he made some serious points about why the Bill will make a difference on reoffending, which is what we all want.
Turning to those on the Opposition Benches, I greatly appreciate the thoughtful and contributory approach of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and hope that when the Bill reaches the Lords it will be considered in a similar way. I should also thank the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who has been incredibly supportive through this process. His presence at the Dispatch Box is a real comfort. I know he is passionate not just about this part of dealing with the challenges faced by those being released, but about trying to get to the bottom of and improving the wider structural issues which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned. I also thank his incredible team at the Ministry—not least Robyn, who has been a huge support to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Workington—and the Clerks in the Public Bill Office, whose guidance has been a great help.
I also thank my constituents who have spoken to me about this issue, as well as charities—not least Sam Julius and the team at Nacro who have campaigned so much on this issue—chaplains, faith groups, and third sector organisations including Switchback, the Community Chaplain Association, Release Mates and the Well Communities in Barrow, all of which have supplied case studies, and, more importantly, work day in, day out with offenders to get them on their feet following release against incredibly difficult odds. I hope the passing of this Bill will make those odds just a little bit better.
Finally, I thank my good friend Lord Bird, who has agreed to shepherd this Bill through the other place if—or when—it passes here today. He is the founder of The Big Issue and a passionate supporter and campaigner for social justice, and he knows more than most why this issue matters. The Bill is in good hands.
This small Bill will, I hope, make a very big difference. I thank Members from across the House for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Nigel Evans: May I say that it is a particular privilege for me to be in the Chair to hear the Third Reading passed as a young Simon Fell was formerly a researcher of mine.

Firearms Bill

Second Reading

Simon Baynes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am honoured to speak in the Second Reading of this private Member’s Bill on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who cannot be here today. The Bill seeks to strengthen further this country’s already robust firearms controls in two important but distinct ways: by introducing a new offence to combat the unlawful manufacture of ammunition by criminals; and by closing a loophole in firearms law so the operator of a miniature rifle range must first be granted a firearms certificate by the police.
The ammunition measure in the Bill helps the police tackle unlawful manufacture by introducing a new offence of possessing component parts with the intent to assemble unauthorised quantities of complete ammunition. The police have raised concerns that the component parts of ammunition are too easy to obtain and are being used by criminals to manufacture whole rounds of ammunition. It might be helpful if I briefly list and explain what the components are and how they go together to make a round of ammunition: the gunpowder, used to propel a projectile from a firearm; the primer, an explosive compound that ignites the gunpowder; the projectile or bullet; and the cartridge case.
Controls on primers are set out in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006. Section 35 makes it an offence to sell or purchase primers unless the purchaser is authorised to possess them, for example by being a registered firearms dealer or by holding a firearms certificate authorising them to possess a firearm or ammunition.
Controls on the possession of gunpowder are set out in the Explosives Regulations 2014. The regulations require that, with certain exceptions, anyone wanting to acquire or keep explosives must hold an explosives certificate issued by the police. The projectiles or bullets and the cartridge case are constructed of inert material. Those are not controlled, which can make the prosecution of certain cases by the police difficult. They may believe there is intent to produce ammunition unlawfully, but be unable to progress with certain criminal cases if the materials found are not controlled.
Assembly of ammunition requires various component parts to be used, including the restricted and unrestricted components. The new offence means that the police will be better able to prosecute cases where criminals are manufacturing ammunition, including where only some of the component parts are present, provided that intent is shown. That will be a significant step forward in helping the police to tackle gun crime.
I turn now to the second firearms matter addressed in the Bill, the controls on miniature rifle ranges. It would be fair to say that the current exemption in law for such ranges is a lesser-known area of firearms law. None the less, it is extremely important that we improve the legislative regulation around miniature rifle ranges.
At present, section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968 allows a
“person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range…or shooting gallery”,
at which only miniature rifles and ammunition
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”
or air weapons are used, to purchase, acquire or possess miniature rifles or ammunition without a firearms certificate. Additionally, a person can use those rifles and ammunition at such a range without a certificate.
Although the term “miniature rifle” is used in the legislation, the firearms it applies to are lethal guns and are otherwise subject to the requirement for the holder to apply for a firearms certificate in order to possess them. The existing exception in section 11(4) of the Firearms Act means that a person can purchase firearms and operate a miniature rifle range at which others can shoot without a certificate, and therefore without having undergone the usual stringent police checks on a person’s suitability or police assessment of how they will safely store and use the firearm.
The police raised concerns that the exemption is a loophole in firearms law, which is vulnerable to abuse by criminals or terrorists seeking to access firearms and side-stepping the usual robust checks carried out by the police. The miniature rifle range exemption has been in existence for many years and is used extensively by small-bore rifle clubs to introduce newcomers to sport shooting. It is used by some schools and colleges, by activity centres offering target shooting, at game fairs and in a number of other legitimate environments.
Many would be severely affected if the exemption were removed entirely, as they would no longer be able to enable newcomers to try out target shooting in a safe and controlled environment. In recognition of that, the Bill preserves the benefits that the miniature rifle range exemption offers, while bringing in the appropriate controls by making it a requirement that the operator must be granted a firearms certificate by the police, having undergone all the necessary checks on suitability, security and good reason.
The Bill also more tightly defines what may be considered as a miniature rifle by restricting them to .22 rimfire guns, which are lower-powered rifles. There is concern that the current definition in the legislation of
“not exceeding .23 inch calibre”
could allow the use of more powerful firearms, which would not be suitable for use on a miniature rifle range by an uncertificated person, even with the necessary supervision and safety measures in place.
The Government consulted on introducing these two measures in the firearm safety consultation, which ran from 24 November 2020 until 16 February 2021. I am glad to say that both proposals were supported by the majority of respondents: 62% agreed that it should be
“an offence to possess component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture unauthorised quantities of complete rounds of ammunition”;
73% agreed
“that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to hold a firearms certificate”;
and 74% agreed with the proposal to define miniature rifles more tightly to mean less powerful firearms not exceeding .22 rimfire.
Several respondents to the consultation made the point that ranges or shooting galleries in which only lower-powered air weapons are used should not be affected. In other words, there should be no requirement  for the operator of an air weapons-only range to hold a firearms certificate; the legislative change should apply only to the more powerful and dangerous rifles about which law enforcement has raised concerns. I can offer a reassurance that it is the more powerful and dangerous licensed firearms that are the focus of the Bill’s changes. It will not alter the position with respect to ranges or galleries that use only lower-powered air weapons, namely air rifles of no more than 12 ft lb and air pistols of no more than 6 ft lb. Air weapons are, however, subject to a licensing regime in Scotland; the Bill will not affect that regime in any way.

Greg Smith: My hon. Friend is making a compelling case. I entirely support the Bill’s aims. Can he give a further reassurance that it seeks to close the loophole and ensure that people are properly checked before they can own and operate such ranges or weapons? In no way, shape or form does it seek to close down such ranges; it just puts better safeguards in place. Engaging in shooting sports and such activities is still fundamentally encouraged.

Simon Baynes: My hon. Friend perfectly sums up the Bill’s intent.
The Government response to the public consultation was published on 20 July 2022. It committed to taking measures forward on ammunition and miniature rifle ranges by making
“changes…to primary legislation…when Parliamentary time allows.”
The Bill is a consequence of that commitment to amend legislation to make our firearms laws even more robust, to tackle crime and to continue to improve public safety. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their help in preparing the Bill. It gives me great pleasure to commend it to the House.

Jonathan Gullis: I am aware of time, so I will not go on for too long. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on moving the Bill’s Second Reading on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is a fantastic champion in this House for his local community.
It all comes down to using more common sense, which is something that seems to be rife in Parliament on Fridays—we should probably try to inject a bit more from Mondays to Wednesdays. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) pointed out, the Bill simply closes a loophole. It is not about being anti-shooting range or even anti-gun owner, as long as people are responsible, go through all the checks and follow all the safety requirements. There are many people across the country who follow the rules and should be commended for doing so. The Bill is designed purely to ensure that people who have gone through the checks have the right to continue owning such weapons if they so wish. It will ensure that those who wish to go to a firing range and enjoy sporting activities can do so in the safest possible environment.
Personally, I have never owned a weapon. Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke does not have a shooting range, as far as I am aware; if it does have one, it is definitely illegal.
Anyone who obeys and follows the law has nothing to fear from this legislation, which will simply enable our brave police officers to carry out these checks to make sure that licences are given out to appropriate individuals. We should all welcome that, and it is particularly important for the protection of under-18s. When I look at the violence with weapons in the United States of America, although there is a constitutional right to own weapons there and it is not for us to intervene in that, the situation is clearly out of control in some parts of that great nation. It is important that we learn from the terrible disasters that have occurred in that nation and make our country as safe as possible by ensuring that our police have all the weapons at their disposal in terms of legislation to protect the communities we live in. I support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing it pass its Second Reading today.

Jane Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on taking on such a good Bill and my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who introduced it. The Bill deals with two aspects: miniature rifle ranges and the manufacture of ammunition. I will focus on miniature rifle ranges in my remarks.
There is an exemption in firearms law—section 11(4) of the Firearms Act 1968—that allows a person to run a rifle range or shooting gallery where only small calibre rifles or air weapons are used without the need for a firearms licence. Additionally, members of the public do not need a firearms licence to shoot at such a range or gallery. That exemption is widely used to introduce people to target shooting. Law enforcement has raised concerns that the exemption may allow unsuitable people to gain access to firearms, with consequent public safety risks.
The firearms safety consultation sought views on improving the controls on miniature rifle ranges while retaining the benefits that miniature rifle ranges present to shooting sports. The key proposal was that anyone who wishes to operate a miniature rifle range must apply for a firearms licence and undergo the necessary police checks into their background and security. Some 73% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the operator of a miniature rifle range should be required to have a firearms certificate, while 20% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
Nobody here is interested in stifling sport, least of all me, as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough—the epicentre of sport, in my considered opinion. We are looking to introduce restrictions that will enable law enforcement officers and other agencies to understand exactly who has these firearms and these ranges, to create a safer environment. That will be a good safeguard for those who run small rifle ranges, so that they have confidence that they and the people who attend their rifle ranges have been assessed. That is the main point I would like to make today.
To the average person in the street, a gun still looks like a gun, even if it is from a small rifle range, and we have to bear that in mind when considering the possible misuse by a very small percentage of users. It is important  that we have robust restrictions, that we understand exactly who has these weapons and that we ensure they are used in a safe place. That is why I support the Bill.

Nigel Evans: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephen Kinnock: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on this important Bill and thank the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) for presenting it and speaking on his behalf so eloquently.
It is frequently said that the UK has one of the toughest systems in the world for regulating the ownership of firearms. Members on both sides of the House will undoubtedly be thankful that that is the case but will also share the belief that we must never lose sight of the need to ensure that our laws and regulations remain fit for purpose. The licensing system currently in force dates back more than 50 years, having been established by the landmark Firearms Act 1968.While that groundbreaking law was a vital first step, we must never allow ourselves to fall into the trap of complacency. Despite the importance of the 1968 Act, it took the unspeakable tragedies of mass shootings in Hungerford and Dunblane to prompt further action to tighten up our laws in the 1980s and 1990s.
Today, the memories of five people—Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, Lee Martyn and Lee’s three-year-old daughter Sophie, who were shot dead in Plymouth in August 2021—cast a long shadow over this debate. We must not wait for another equally horrific event before we take the steps needed to bring the law up to date. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for his passionate advocacy of measures to further restrict the ownership of dangerous weapons and to counter online radicalisation, and to the hon. Member for West Bromwich West for promoting the Bill.
The Bill’s intent is to,
“Make provision about the regulation of certain rifle ranges and shooting galleries; to make provision for an offence in relation to the possession of component parts of ammunition; and for connected purposes.”
I will take each point in turn. Clause 1 would make limited changes to the scope of provisions in the Firearms Act on the use of weapons at shooting ranges and galleries. It is not clear that the changes go far enough. For instance, the Government’s response to a consultation published last July announced plans to introduce a new requirement for operators of miniature rifle ranges to be issued with a firearms certificate. The response noted that that would require changes to primary legislation, but did not give a timescale. Perhaps the Minister could update the House on that point.
Clause 2 would introduce a new offence of possessing component parts of ammunition with intent to manufacture. That is an important step that reflects the widespread recognition that the law as it stands has not kept pace with changes in technology over recent years. Again, the changes do not appear to have gone as far  as they could have. For instance, the offence created  by clause 2 would apply to ownership of four primary  components: bullets, cartridge cases, primers and propellants. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he is confident that even with those changes, the law would adequately reflect the application of recent technological developments such as 3D printing and other evolving technologies that make access to deadlier weapons significantly easier for those who seek them.
It is important to note that the new offence envisaged by clause 2 would require evidence of an intent to use components to manufacture ammunition. What can the Minister, or any hon. Member who supports the changes, tell us about the standard of proof that will apply when determining intent? How might attempts to evade detection be addressed as part of efforts to tackle such offences?
Finally, we should give consideration to the many important issues the Bill does not address. Do the Government plan to establish a new independent regulator for firearms licensing? Can we have an update on progress towards implementing the Government’s commitment to a national accredited training scheme for firearms enquiry officers? When will the new curriculum be introduced? What changes, if any, do the Government plan to make to the licensing process at national level? Will changes be made to the application fees for firearms certifications, which are currently £70 and £80, in order to more accurately reflect the actual cost of processing the applications, which can exceed £500? What steps will be taken to address the apparent surge in the number of temporary permits, which, according to recent reports, is a direct consequence of backlogs in the system, in order to fully ensure that weapons do not get into the wrong hands?
Finally, how will wider policy challenges, such as the urgent need for more effective action to tackle online radicalisation, be addressed in the weeks ahead? Will the Minister consider changes to the Online Safety Bill to strengthen the law in that area? All too often in the past, loopholes and weaknesses in our firearms laws were not addressed until it was too late. If there is one thing that Members of all political persuasions can agree on, it is that gun violence must be eradicated. I look forward to hearing more detail on the Government’s plans to achieve that objective.

Chris Philp: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) on introducing this private Member’s Bill and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) on stepping into his place with such eloquence and command of the House, as we heard just a few moments ago.
Time is relatively short, so I am not going to repeat at length a description of the provisions that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South have both already covered. Suffice it to say that, as they have laid out, the Bill intends to more tightly define the legislation around miniature rifles to ensure that a limitation of .22 is placed on their calibre and that the people operating miniature rifle ranges need to have licences.
As others have laid out, clause 2 seeks to make it clear that having an intent to assemble components into ammunition will constitute an offence. As the Bill passes through Committee, we may want to make sure that we   cover not only people intending to manufacture ammunition themselves, but those facilitating others to do so. However, that is a definitional detail that I am sure we can consider properly in the course of Committee proceedings.
The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. I am sure we will discuss them more on other occasions, but 3D printed weapons—either the weapons themselves or the components thereof—are treated the same as regular weapons. We will, of course, keep that under review. He asked about the fees charged for firearms licensing; as I said to the House a week or two ago, we have committed to consulting this year—probably in the summer or early autumn—about increasing those fees to make sure that the full costs are recovered by police forces. The question of accreditation of firearms examination officers is one that I discussed with the College of Policing’s chief executive, Andy Marsh, just this week. That is an area that we would like to see taken forward by policing, and it is something that the College of Policing will consider in conjunction with the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
On the question about firearms backlogs and temporary licences, I reviewed the data on that only yesterday and, of the 43 forces, I consider four to have unacceptably high backlogs. I will be communicating with the chief constables of those four forces in the very near future.
Last week or the week before, I made a statement on the terrible shootings that we have seen; as the shadow Minister knows, the Government are waiting for the prevention of future deaths report from the Plymouth coroner so that lessons can be learned and whatever changes need to be made can be made, in order to prevent appalling tragedies such as that. We will also consider the recommendations made by the Independent Office for Police Conduct, as well as a report by the Scottish Affairs Committee prompted by a tragedy that took place on the Isle of Skye. We will consider all three things together, and the Government will respond substantively within 60 days of receiving that prevention of future deaths report, which we believe we will receive in the very near future.
I am conscious that I have strayed somewhat beyond the strict topic of the Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to answer some of the shadow Minister’s questions; we can discuss the others later. I put on record the Government’s support for the Bill. It is well constructed and will certainly contribute to public safety, and I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to make this excellent Bill law as soon as possible.

Simon Baynes: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate.
I will be very brief, but I want to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their support for the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for his customary common sense, and for making the point that we are not anti-ranges but in favour of closing loopholes and increasing safety. I have to say that I was somewhat relieved to hear that he had not owned a weapon personally. [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt)—from the epicentre of sport—for pointing out that we are not seeking to stifle sport, and that these  restrictions are intended to create a safer environment. I thank the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) for his supportive approach. His point that laws and regulations must remain fit for purpose is of course central to our aims. He spoke movingly about the horror of gun crime, and searchingly but constructively about the details of the Bill. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for bringing his customary vigorous commitment and his wealth of experience to supporting the Bill and its further progress through the House, and also for doing the hon. Member for Aberavon the courtesy of answering his questions.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) for bringing the Bill to the point at which we have been able to discuss it today. It has been an honour for me to carry on his work in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill

Second Reading

Christopher Chope: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
There is quite a history to this subject, going back far too many years. Back in 2015, the Government resolved that something must be done about obscenely high public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000 each. At that stage it was estimated that they might be costing the taxpayer at least £250 million a year. The Government legislated to make provision for that to be changed and for exit payments in excess of £95,000 to be outlawed, but the consultation was much delayed.
In the 2017 Session of Parliament, I introduced a Bill to give a bit of impetus to the Government’s agenda, requiring the necessary regulations to be brought forward. I had previously been told by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury that the Government were “delivering our manifesto commitment” to end these big payouts, and that:
“These reforms will ensure fairness and value for money across the public sector”.
In June 2017, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the secondary legislation would be introduced, I was told that the Government were
“currently in the process of drafting the necessary regulations.”
As not much progress seemed to have been made, I asked the question again. On 4 December 2017, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that before laying the necessary regulations,
“we will bring forward a consultation in the first quarter of 2018”.
As you might anticipate, Mr Deputy Speaker, no such consultation was forthcoming, so I then asked another question to find out what was happening. I was told:
“To ensure the successful implementation of these changes, a consultation will be brought forward in the next few months.”
That takes us to May 2018, when I asked a further question. In June that year, the Chief Secretary said that the Government “remains committed” to this policy, and that the regulations would be brought forward. Indeed, they were already being drafted, but were subject to “further iteration”. We then roll forward a few years, unfortunately, because the Government ultimately introduced the regulations in February 2021, but no sooner had they introduced the regulations than they decided that the regulations were inappropriate, so the regulations were revoked. What will happen next? We were told that the Government are still intent on pursuing this policy, but nothing much has happened since.
I received a letter from the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 20 October 2021 saying that he would not be able to support the private Member’s Bill I had tabled in the previous Session, but that
“we are continuing to consider and develop new policy initiatives to manage spending on exit payments, including an additional approvals process, and mechanisms for clawing back exit payments where individuals resume employment in the public sector within a particular time frame.”
What has happened since then? In August 2022, the Government issued a consultation paper, “Public Sector Exit Payments: a new controls process for high exit  payments”, with which came some draft guidance. The consultation period was expected to expire on 17 October 2022. Have we received a Government response to that consultation? No, we have not.
This whole policy is still up in the air. With the news that the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, has just resigned, I ask this question, perhaps rhetorically: to what extent was she involved in trying to ensure that this clear Government policy has been frustrated for so many years? In one of my meetings with one of the Chief Secretaries to the Treasury involved in this matter, I said that it seems as though the policy of restricting public sector exit payments is being sabotaged by Treasury officials and other Government officials because they do not support it. This is a good example of where the civil service seems to be out of control. The Government need to regain control of the process, as it is unacceptable that something that was in our 2015 manifesto has still not been implemented.
I am pleased to have the opportunity again today to press the Government to get a grip of the subject, because we are no longer talking about £250 million of public sector exit payments in excess of £95,000. It is now probably getting on for £1 billion, for all I know—we do not have that information. The Government seem to be in denial. They will the end, but they do not seem to will the means. That is why I tabled this Bill, and it now gives the Minister an opportunity to make more promises of good intent and to tell us when these proposals will actually be implemented. Perhaps she can also tell us how much she thinks Sue Gray will be entitled to as her public sector exit payment.

James Wild: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has shown his dogged determination in bringing this issue back to the House once again. My constituents feel angry when they see these massive payouts, often to people who reappear elsewhere in the public sector on another six-figure salary. That is why it is right that  the Government legislated in 2015, which was a long time ago.
Perhaps unusually, I will highlight the good practice of the BBC, which has put in place a voluntary cap. It is £150,000, though, which is 50% higher than the one set out in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Of course, the BBC did that only because it had paid £450,000 to a director-general who had been in post for only 54 days. I am sure my hon. Friend will share my concern at the figures in the latest annual report that over the past two years, the BBC has paid out £127 million in severance payments, with 430 of those payments in the bracket of £100,000 to £150,000. While part of that is about reducing headcount at the BBC, which is too large and needs to deliver much better value for the taxpayer, that is still a very high level of money.
The Government did bring forward the regulations, which were passed by both Houses back in September 2020, but regrettably, in the face of complaints from the unions and others, they were withdrawn over what counted as exit payment caps. It was quite a long list, including redundancy payments, payments to reduce actuarial reduction, payments under settlement agreements,  severance payments, payment in the form of shares and payments on voluntary exits. There is obviously an issue that needs to be tackled. My hon. Friend spoke about the consultation published last August, and I think we would all be keen to hear from the Minister when the Government will be bringing forward measures and responding to that consultation, because it is time we dealt with this issue. We legislated for it back in 2015. It is now eight years on, and my constituents want to see action. They want to see an end to this high level of pay-outs.

Anthony Browne: I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for bringing this Bill forward. It is on an incredibly important issue that has been the subject of massive public concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) pointed out, in relation to the BBC and in national Government. It is also of concern in local government. In my area, the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority hired a chief executive officer who left after eight months and was given a £169,000 payment package last year. Such sums of money are completely incomprehensible to members of the public who pay the taxes that go to such payments. That one was at an incredibly high level that breaches even the BBC guidelines.
There is a fundamental problem. I have been chief executive of two organisations, and one of the horrible things about running an organisation is that occasionally one needs to get rid of people and make payments to them. The statutory payments are incredibly low, so we tend to give payments above that. If someone is working for a private sector organisation, they have a strong incentive to try not to give out too much money.  I always capped my payments at one year’s salary. I resisted ever paying out more than that.
In the public sector, it is not your money; you are giving taxpayers’ money away, and often senior managers may well have a conflict of interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch did not quite refer to it as that, but a lot of senior civil servants will be conscious that they may one day themselves be in a position where they will get a payout, so there is perhaps a personal incentive to make sure that the regime is not capped in any particular way and remains generous.
This is a legitimate issue and an issue of public concern. I had not realised that the payments were so much—they are in the region of £1 billion a year now, and that is fiscally significant. These are not tiny sums of money by national standards. It is frustrating that action has not been taken, when it was in the manifesto eight years ago in 2015. The Government have been repeatedly pushing at it. The consultation that closed last year repeated the point about the £95,000 cap. I should say that with inflation at 10%, that £95,000 is becoming worth less and less, and the cap will bite in at a lower level and more and more people will be affected by it. I would certainly be keen to hear from the Government what they intend to do to finally bring this measure in and implement it. In their consultation, they suggest two different mechanisms for control processes. I would also be keen to hear whether this is just for national Government. It should apply across other parts  of the public sector and local government, too. I support the intent of the Bill, and I am keen to hear what the Government have to say.

Sally-Ann Hart: The Public Sector Exit Payments (Limitation) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), has reached Second Reading today, and it does have merit in its endeavour to secure value for money for the taxpayer.
I understand that the Government believe that staff exits and exit payments have an important role to play as regards organisational changes in the public sector, and these exit payments need to be looked at through a rigorous process. After all, it is taxpayers’ money that is paying for such exit payments. I also understand that the Government are seeking to reduce the use of large exit payments in the public sector and are looking to develop guidance on it. There needs to be consistency and accountability about the use of such payments.
I note that the Government consultation closed in October 2022. During the last debate on the subject, the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), implied that the consultation would be brought forward. I hope that the Minister today might provide an update on the outcome of the consultation and the Government’s response. I draw attention to the merit of the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

Tulip Siddiq: We on the Labour Benches fully recognise the importance of achieving the best possible value for our taxpayers. I remind the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and everyone who has spoken in support of the Bill, however, that the Government introduced a public sector exit payment cap in 2020 and it did not work. The cap failed to provide value for the taxpayer, it had numerous unintended consequences, and it adversely affected dedicated, long-serving public servants who earned relatively low salaries, often less than £25,000 a year. Indeed, due to those failings, in March 2021—less than a year after introducing the regulations—the Government were forced to U-turn and revoke the cap.
Let me take each failing in turn. First, far from saving taxpayers money, the cap produced additional costs. Because the regulations treated payments under a settlement agreement, but not employment tribunal awards, as an exit payment, they created a perverse incentive for people to go to tribunal. An employment tribunal is a time-consuming and costly legal process for a public sector employer to go through, and I remind hon. Members that that cost is passed on to the taxpayer.
Secondly, the cap had other unintended consequences—for example, it did not take into account an individual pension contribution, so through no fault of their own, long-serving staff over the age of 55 who were facing redundancy were hit by the regulations. They were obliged to take their pension if they lost their job, so  their final exit payment, when combined with their redundancy pay, could easily exceed the £95,000 cap under the regulations.
Finally, when they introduced the cap, the Government initially said that the regulations were designed to prevent large exit payments to so-called public sector fat cats, but in reality the cap hit low-paid workers hardest. Long-serving local government workers, who earned as little as £23,000, were pulled into the cap when their pensions were taken into account.
All that was foreseen by public sector unions, including Unison, Unite, GMB, Prospect and the Public and Commercial Services Union, when the cap was first proposed, but Ministers refused to listen. The unions were left with no choice but to take the Government to judicial review, which wasted more time and more taxpayers’ money, before the Government finally admitted that the cap had unintended consequences and should be revoked.
The Labour party will therefore not support the Bill today. I advise the Government to do the same to avoid further embarrassment.

Victoria Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her advice, but I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on securing a Second Reading of the Bill. I thank him and several other hon. Friends for their continued focus on this important issue.
We value our public sector workers and the services they provide, but it is important to take a common-sense approach when considering the terms and conditions that should be on offer in the public sector, and to strike a fair balance between the interests of employees and taxpayers. Such payments must be fair and proportionate, and value for money must be achieved for the taxpayer. That is particularly pertinent at this time, when difficult decisions have had to be taken about the public finances and we look to squeeze more out of every pound of taxpayers’ money. Indeed, one of the Prime Minister’s five pledges is to ensure that our national debt is falling, so that we can secure the future of the public services on which so many rely. That is important because in recent years the Government have been concerned about the overall spending on exit payments, and the number of very large exit payments made to individuals.
The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 11(2)).
Ordered, That the debate be resumed on Friday 17 March.

Business without Debate

Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (2 December 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

National Health Service Co-Funding and Co-Payment Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Anonymity of Suspects Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (28 October 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

NHS England (Alternative Treatment) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Green Belt (Protection) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

BBC LICENCE FEE NON-PAYMENT (DECRIMINALISATION FOR OVER-75s) BILL

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (21 October 2022), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Renewable Liquid Heating Fuel Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill

Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Markets and Market Traders  (Review of Support) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

British Broadcasting Corporation (Privatisation) Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Seizure of Russian State Assets and Support for Ukraine Bill

Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members:: Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March.

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill

Bill read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).

Lia Nici: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a serious constitutional concern on an issue of how Parliament works with the civil service. It has always been understood that Members of this House should be able to work with senior civil servants, and talk freely and openly with them, knowing that they are impartial and not linked to any political party.
It has been widely reported, and confirmed, that the Labour party has looked to employ a second permanent secretary to become the chief of staff for the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition. It is the same second permanent secretary who carried out, on behalf of the then Prime Minister, an investigation into alleged gatherings on Government premises at a time of covid restrictions. There have been widespread concerns as to how this appointment by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will interact with the current work of the Privileges Committee, which I understand is proposing to rely on the evidence of the Sue Gray report as its essential basis.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can you please guide us on how we can raise serious procedural concerns about this matter, given that the politics of the appointment have raised such significant concerns, and tell us whether the Chair has been given any notice of any statement forthcoming from Government on this serious and urgent matter?

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I have received no notification that there will be any statements today and, as we are moving straight to the Adjournment, that is very unlikely. There is an ongoing inquiry, as she has intimated. If she goes to the Table Office and inquires there, I am sure that she will get proper advice on how she may pursue the matter further.

Major Transport Infrastructure Construction

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Greg Smith: Among the numerous issues I have raised in this House over the past three and a bit years, there is one that stands out both for its magnitude and spread across my constituency, as well as for the number of times I have raised it: the impact of major infrastructure projects on rural areas such as mine in Buckinghamshire.
Before I come to my substantive comments, let me say that there is nothing that takes away my firmly held belief that the Government need to see sense and end the colossal waste of money, the unwanted project, ruinous on the taxpayer and destructive of communities, that is High Speed 2. However, I will focus my comments particularly on the impact that such big infrastructure projects have on the people who have to live around their construction.
Those projects are simply not designed with those impacted in mind. No community support scheme can possibly account for the upending of rural life that they bring for residents and businesses alike—and for their local elected representatives. Nothing can prepare those communities for the misery they face on a daily basis.
A substantial element of that misery comes from the appalling state in which these projects have left the rural roads network. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for coming to see that for himself the other week. Those roads are a lifeline for my constituents to reach work, schools and hospital appointments, yet in places they remain impassable and present a clear risk to all road users.
It is no coincidence that the worst roads are concentrated around the construction compounds, being pounded every day by heavy goods vehicles in volumes and with loads that they were not built to handle. Yet the meagre funds that these projects have been willing to contribute towards their repair, after much wrangling by me, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and Buckinghamshire Council, do not even scratch the surface. I am grateful that East West Rail recently agreed to fund the resurfacing of a number of roads in north Buckinghamshire, but there is a huge way to go yet.
That is far from being a good neighbour. Good neighbours clear up after themselves. It is clear that the damage we are seeing could only have come from the constant churn of HGVs in and out of these compounds—compounds that have swallowed up huge amounts of arable land, depriving countless farmers of their livelihoods. To make matters worse, the project’s contractors and management have treated them with contempt, from flooded fields to unpaid bills, unannounced visits and unbelievably long waits for answers to basic questions such as, “When will you come to clear up the litter that your contractors have strewn across my driveway?”
Indeed, the approach taken by these projects to land acquisition has been poor at best, inadequate at worst. In any case, the land taken from hard-working farmers is land unlikely to be returned in its previous productive state. No one at the project can say when, or how much of, the land taken from farmers under supposedly temporary  possession—we all remember income tax was meant to be temporary—will be given back. To any farmer, this signals the end of the road. How can anyone possibly run a business having lost their main asset without knowing when it will be returned?
With every delay the project incurs, another farm risks going under. Over time, this has a devastating effect on the local rural economy, which is underpinned by farming through employment and the custom they bring. Take the Gosses in Quainton, who have been kept waiting months for answers on whether their land will in fact be split in two; or Deanne Wood in Twyford and Andy Hunter in Fleet Marston, both of whom have suffered terrible flooding as a result of HS2’s poor monitoring. Robert Withey’s father sadly passed away under the enormous stress and anxiety caused by the project taking over the family farm. Then there is Joseph Hodges, whose land lies not just in the railway’s path but where the enormous infrastructure maintenance depot will be built in the coming years, a facility which has no place in such a rural location, taking vast swathes of agricultural land away from those who depend on it.
Regardless of what sort of affected business we are talking about, the project has no means to compensate them. What were the proponents of the scheme thinking? It is well established that major infrastructure projects rarely run to time or budget. HS2 takes that to a whole new level, yet has no means to compensate those who have materially suffered under its weight. One example is the Prince of Wales pub in Steeple Claydon, a village which is surrounded by compounds on all sides. With so much construction concentrated in one small area, the seemingly endless road closures that each project supposedly requires have a knock-on effect for businesses that rely on customers travelling between villages, as well as for the hardworking employees of those businesses. When East West Rail shut Queen Catherine Road and HS2 shut Addison Road last year, the Prince of Wales lost approximately £3,000 in turnover a week, which is massive for any small village pub. That is on top of the 50%, 60% and 70% increases in gas and electricity bills we have seen recently. It is further estimated that the upcoming closure of Addison Road from February to the end of July this year will cost that pub another £50,000 in lost revenue, but no compensation is on  the table.
The risk of businesses being caught in a perpetual cycle of endless road closures therefore goes far beyond the business itself. It deprives residents of long-standing community assets without any recompense or even so much as an acknowledgement of how devastating such losses are. Take Andy and Dan Price’s coach company Langston & Tasker, whose business by nature relies on the local road network to operate. A contracted provider of school transport for Buckinghamshire Council, they have also been caught in the road closure shuffle. Any roads they use risk covering their vehicles in mud or even often ripping tyres off their rims, yet they, too, have never been compensated for any of the damage undoubtedly caused by both HS2 and East West Rail’s construction vehicles. All the while, schoolchildren continually turn up late, having been kept waiting at the bus stop while HS2 and East West Rail HGVs come speeding past, putting at risk anyone unlucky enough to come face to face with a driver who is more interested  in putting his own schedule above the safety of other  road users.
For Langston & Tasker, Andy and Dan are having to deal with huge diversions, all of which put significant strain on company finances through added fuel cost and wear and tear: Buckingham Road closed, an additional 92 miles a day, or 460 miles a week; West Street closed, an additional 110 miles a day, or 550 miles a week; Queen Catherine Road closed, an additional 20 miles a day, or 100 miles a week on the bottom line for that bus company; and West Street and Queen Catherine Road closed, an additional 182 miles a day, or 910 miles extra per week for that company. That costs fuel, that costs tyres, that costs them their business.
Behind the scenes, the project’s directors have clearly lost control of their contractors,with one going so far as to seek planning permission for a training centre near Twyford, now downgraded to a storage facility, which I am extremely disappointed to report to House has been granted by the Planning Inspectorate. How on earth can a contractor be allowed to seek permission for something not in the Act, something so substantial and unsuitable for a rural environment, something so close to residents, on top of all the existing disruption that HS2 has brought on this community? This sets the worrying precedent for all rural communities that HS2 or any other major infrastructure project will happily let their contractors, which clearly have no regard for local residents and businesses, run rampant without so much as a slap on the wrist. This simply must change. The presumption must change and be flipped from what is convenient for the contractor to what is in the interests of the local people.
Our roads have suffered under the project’s weight. Across the network we are seeing key routes fall into seemingly terminal decline—key routes that have been taken over by HGVs going to and from compounds. Whether it is HS2, East West Rail or, frankly, any other project making use of the local road network, expectations have not remotely met reality. That is a prime example of the failure to account for the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects.
Another issue is the enormous burden that these projects place on our local authority—Buckinghamshire Council. Bucks council has valiantly stepped up to the plate and pushed back against these mega-projects when the plans—whether it be road closures, safety concerns over bridges, or unwarranted and, at times, illegal hedgerow or tree removal, harm the interests of residents and businesses across my constituency and the whole country. Time and again critical information has been withheld from the council by HS2 and East West Rail relating to road closures, traffic management and a whole host of other key aspects of construction. All too often the projects do not even talk to each other, let alone the council. That is all to the cost of our council tax payers. Fundamentally, the council should not be put in this position in the first place. The council has been forced to direct more and more resources to deal with something, in the form of HS2, that it did not want in the first place. Certainly, with East West Rail, however much benefit there may be from that particular railway and a new station at Winslow, whenever they happen to be delivered, it simply cannot be worth the detrimental state that contractors have left our entire area in during the process.
Even to this day, HS2 and East West Rail claim they are good neighbours. Yet, just this morning, I learned  from residents of Comerford Way and McLernon Way that the track-laying train is due to arrive between 10 pm and 4 am right at the back of their houses. The disruption from that will be immense. No one should have to put up with all these issues from the projects, from cracked foundations in their homes, flooded fields where their crops once grew, roads that become impassable with potholes, and intimidating behaviour from the projects’ security teams. I could go on, but these problems cannot; they must be tackled head-on.
All major infrastructure projects based in rural areas must recognise their impact on local communities and take their responsibilities seriously. The Department for Transport must recognise this glaring flaw. Countless businesses in my constituency are demanding compensation for unreasonable and unfair treatment from all levels of the project, from contractors to senior management. No one has been willing to step up and take responsibility for the human impact that this ever-worsening situation is causing. Indeed, HS2 and East West Rail are both operating in isolation from reality—the reality of people’s lives and livelihoods, of public safety, of businesses going under, and of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money that the project is consuming. That cannot be allowed to continue.
As we see in the news today talk of delays and ways to try to claw back some of that money, I urge the Minister, when he responds, to give a cast iron guarantee from that Dispatch Box that, as those cuts and delays are looked at, not one cut and not one delay will impact on my constituents or anyone affected by the construction of this project, not least in the mitigations that have been promised, such as the bund at Twyford. This project, HS2, East West Rail and all other infrastructure projects must be held better to account, and they must decide to change their behaviour in favour of local people and away from their own convenience.

Nigel Evans: Mr Butler has been given permission by the Member in charge of the Adjournment debate and the Minister responding to make a short contribution, and I have been informed.

Rob Butler: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) and the Minister for giving me permission to contribute. This is a very important debate on a topic that affects many of my constituents, too. For the sake of brevity, I shall focus my remarks on the biggest problem that Aylesbury faces from transport infrastructure construction. It will come as a surprise to nobody that that is HS2.
Almost every community along the 5.9 miles of railway that are now being built through my constituency, from Aylesbury to Wendover, Stoke Mandeville to Dunsmore, is affected by traffic delays and long diversions, noise and dust—all of it caused by that construction project. For any area, this would be challenging and deeply frustrating for residents and local businesses, but Aylesbury is a town that has long needed major investment in its road network to alleviate the existing congestion  caused by housing development—the building of literally thousands of new houses. The addition of the largest infrastructure project in Europe now means that we have almost constant gridlock and abject misery.
Since the construction of HS2 began in earnest, my constituents have been contacting me continually to voice their frustration at the impact of traffic on their daily lives. Local businesses cite how it is reducing footfall in the town centre. One hairdresser told me, for example, how appointments are frequently being missed at her salon as so many people are stuck in jams caused by HS2. Missed appointments mean lost revenue.
The problems of constructing the railway are particularly well known to residents living on the western side of Aylesbury. My constituents in Fairford Leys often describe trying to exit their estate as a nightmare, due to the traffic management systems in place on the A418 Oxford Road. Indeed, not long after I was elected to this place, I was furious to discover that HS2 Ltd closed part of that road and caused utter gridlock, then telling me, “Oh, we miscalculated the traffic flows.” Miscalculation might be an easy word to HS2 Ltd; it is considerably more disruptive to the people of Fairford Leys.
Indeed, Fairford Leys is a perfect microcosm of what dealing with HS2 Ltd can be like on the ground. The company has refused now to reopen a path there that is extremely popular with walkers, despite residents saying that there is no sign of any work actually taking place at that spot. Not surprisingly, this has caused great upset and annoyance. HS2 Ltd’s decision to fence off areas in that same location and put up surveillance cameras has led to residents now saying that they feel besieged by this white elephant that none of them wanted in the first place. Of course, I take these concerns up with HS2 Ltd directly, but they should not be happening in the first place.
Put simply, if people want to drive on a road, HS2 makes their life a misery; if they want to walk on a path, HS2 makes their life a misery. Such inconvenience and intransigence lose HS2 Ltd even what little goodwill it has ever had, and it is already in very short supply. Unfortunately, we have many more years of this to come. Therefore, like my constituency neighbour, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows the local area well, to tell HS2 Ltd to get a grip and deliver on its promise to be a good neighbour, not the neighbour from hell.

Huw Merriman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) for securing this debate, and I welcome the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). There are three reasons for my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham to be cheerful: his Bill passed through the House earlier; he has secured this debate; and it is his birthday—a very happy birthday to him.
First, I would like to recognise the change and upheaval that major infrastructure transport projects such as HS2 and East West Rail bring to the communities they pass through. I say that as someone who grew up in Buckingham. Indeed, I will be in the fine village of Padbury in Buckingham for my niece’s wedding this weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will recall the visit that he and I embarked on around the Claydons and Padbury in January, so that I could see for myself the impact of the construction project on his constituents; I am grateful for his time.
HS2 construction is approaching its peak, and so, regrettably, is the level of disruption, with road closures, lorry movements and both visible and audible signs of construction in affected areas; I recognise that. While some unwelcome impacts on local people are unavoidable in major projects, I am determined as the Minister responsible for rail to ensure that HS2 Ltd and the East West Rail Alliance do their utmost to ensure that impacts are reduced as much as is reasonably possible. I expect the communities affected by the construction of these railways to be at the heart of their delivery plans.
I want to touch on the concerns raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham and for Aylesbury with regard to the construction of these projects. Earlier this week, I met the independent HS2 construction commissioner whom we have appointed to investigate construction complaints and help us understand the impacts of HS2’s delivery. That is just one of the ways in which we monitor not just the cost and efficiency of the project but how HS2 is being delivered to minimise the adverse impacts on local people.
HS2 Ltd, the East West Rail Alliance and their contractors are required to comply with exacting environmental requirements, including a comprehensive code of construction practice, which specifies measures to minimise the full range of impacts that any construction project has on affected people and communities. We also expect them to go further, where possible. For example, I am pleased to see HS2 pushing the boundaries for construction projects in areas such as air quality and carbon management.
I know that my hon. Friends will not entirely agree, but I want to reference the legacy and opportunities of these railway projects. Through their programme of innovation, they are leaving a legacy of improvements across the construction industry and providing a breadth of opportunities for local communities up and down the country. HS2 in particular is supporting over 29,000 jobs, and local places are already identifying opportunities to use it to support the delivery of more jobs, homes, investment and economic growth. Over 1,100 apprentices have been recruited on the HS2 programme since February 2017, and more than 2,500 businesses from across the UK have delivered work on HS2. More than 97% of the HS2 supply chain is UK-registered, and more than 60% is made up of small and medium-sized enterprises.
HS2 is committed to delivering no net loss to biodiversity on phases 1 and 2a. Similarly, on the first section of East West Rail and on HS2 phase 2b, there is a commitment to deliver a biodiversity net gain of 10%, to ensure that construction not only protects but enhances the natural environment that local communities can enjoy. To date, East West Rail has delivered 1,100 hectares, or over  240 acres, of new habitats at more than 20 different  sites and planted 150,000 plants and trees. For its part, HS2 Ltd has created nearly 120 new sites and planted 845,000 trees.
Let me turn to the construction challenges. Despite all the efforts, the scale of these projects brings additional challenges, and I thank my hon. Friends for giving us some examples. The most important thing is that, where challenges or issues occur, we are committed to resolving them as quickly as possible and ensuring that lessons are learned for the future. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson),  who is sitting on the Treasury Bench, did a fantastic job, and I want to continue his fine work by engaging with my hon. Friends.
My hon. Friends raised concerns about the extra damage to roads caused by heavy construction traffic. I am aware that both HS2 Ltd and the East West Rail Company have been working closely with Buckinghamshire Council in the last year to improve the way that such road repairs are managed. They have already allocated considerable resources to dealing with this particular problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham will be aware, from a letter that he has received from East West Rail, that it has formally agreed the scope of repairs required for approximately half of Buckinghamshire Council’s construction links. The first of those repairs were completed on Queen Catherine Road and Whaddon Road at the end of last year. The remaining repairs will be ongoing through 2023. The repairs will be co-ordinated with HS2 road closures, minimising disruption to local residents. I will meet my hon. Friend, Buckinghamshire Council, HS2 and East West Rail shortly, in a face-to-face  meeting, to see what else needs to be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury would be most welcome to join that meeting so that we can focus on matters across his constituency.
To conclude, both HS2 and East West Rail are major projects that, in time, will bring major benefits, just like the Elizabeth line. However, at this point in time it is natural that people are more focused on the problems that we encounter along the way. I assure my hon. Friends that that is a key preoccupation for us, too. My Department will continue to investigate incidents that are brought to my attention, and we will push for improvements where we feel that they are necessary. As the Minister responsible for rail, I will continue to work with my hon. Friends and others to ensure that we get the delivery of infrastructure projects right. I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.